CHURCH

[Guest wizzywig]

Thanks, calypso. I have some more stuff that I plan to post soon that should ratchet the amazement up another notch. I think any of the atheists/skeptics/agnostics on this forum who seriously want to investigate the reality of God--and want to do so without being preached to from the Bible--should read the books I recommended in that post, especially the books by Paul Davies.

 

I'm also writing a book that deals in part with that subject, which will be published this Fall.

 

Oh, and Conor--I asked you about that sig quote by Ted Byfield. Coincidentally, I happened to be doing some research this morning for another book I'm writing (this research had to do with the Jesus Seminar), and up pops an article from the Edmonton Sun by Ted Byfield. Turns out he's a major religion writer for several publications in Alberta, Canada. Very bright guy, too.

 

--wiz

 

 

[Guest Jericho]

 

"As for Judasim, if Jesus said He came to fulfill it, doesn't that imply that it was incomplete? If Christianity is the completed version of Judasim (with the Messiah having arrived), I think it would be logical for the Jews to come to Christ."

-Conor

 

No, I believe it implies he came to uphold it. He did not come to destroy the Jewish law...which is what happened with the creation of Christianity.

 

According to the Jewish religion, Jesus did not, in fact, complete Judaism. He is not the Messiah. These statements come from a friend who is Jewish, and I have asked him these questions before. According the Judaism, there are trials that the true Messiah will pass and they will know it's him. Jesus did not fulfill all of these trials. He was Jewish, however.

 

Again, we get into the "You must follow Christ" issue that I have such a huge problem with. It just boggles my mind to think that with everything out there, this is it. The one end all, be all solution. No God of compassion and love would do that. At least, not in my opinion.

 

There is no way to say who is right or who isn't. There are billions of people on this planet, a fraction of whom are Christian. And I'm to believe that those select people have the ticket and everyone else is out of luck? I don't think so.

 

Why are there so many different religions? They all believe in some kind of God. They all have faith. Who's to say they aren't all correct? Because Christianity has a manuscript called the Bible? What about the Torah? Or any other religious book?

 

God is omnipresent...omnipotent. And, I believe He is the one referred to in every religion. God is a compasionate and loving entity. And He appears to His people however He feels necessary. It doesn't matter if His people call him Budha, Allah or God.

 

Humans are close-minded. God isn't.

 

 

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

Jericho

Break the walls down.

[Guest Kurgan]

There is no way to say who is right or who isn't. There are billions of people on this planet, a fraction of whom are Christian. And I'm to believe that those select people have the ticket and everyone else is out of luck? I don't think so.

 

Why are there so many different religions? They all believe in some kind of God. They all have faith.

 

I think that's putting it a bit too simplistically.

 

Sure, it's nice to have a cosmopolitan view, and many have a view of the divine creator as a loving, all-accepting kind of deity.

 

However, there are some problems with your statements.

 

First of all, "Christianity" is the largest group of believers in the world. Larger than Islam, larger than "atheists/agnostics/freethinkers" combined, larger than Buddhists, larger than Confucianists, etc. They are the largest group, not by that much, but still the largest.

 

So you have billions of Christians, not saying that being the biggest group automatically makes you right, but you ought to realize that it's not like it's a "tiny percentage" trying to stomp on some majority.

 

Out of 6 billion, it's over a third that are Christian.

 

Also, not every religion believes in a God, or even in deities at all.

 

For example, many (not all) branches of Buddhism do not worship gods. Some do not even recognize their existence. Most simply, while acknowledging that they exist (or may exist) they, like us, are seeking enlightenment, not praise and honor from us. They are fallible, just as we are. In fact in many cases, we are better off than the gods, because we are humbled by our existence in order to achieve nirvana. The gods are blinded by cosmic glory to see through to their emptiness. This does not speak for all Buddhist sects of course, becuase some worship Buddha as a god, or recognize the other divas and the honor due them.

 

Likewise, Hindus have 330 million some odd deities. They, like us, in most cases, are seeking enlightenment. There are thousands of sects within Hinduism, and the term is more of an umbrella than any other religion. Some sects are devoted to the worship of specific gods, and some are devoted to the worship of only one God (but they acknowledge that other gods exist).

 

However, if you were to say that the majority of people on earth "acknowledge the existence of at least one deity (divine being) of some kind" would probably be pretty much true. That is my guess though, based on the statistics I've looked at.

 

Most people, if you put them together, would not say that their God and your God are the same, in most cases.

 

Christians, Jews, and Muslims will usually equate their God with each other, because they share the Hebrew Scriptures. That is, the "God of Abraham" was also the God of Jesus, and of Muhammad. However, of course, Jews would reject the notion that Jesus IS God, and Muslims would reject the idea as well that Jesus was truly divine. And of course Jews and Christians would not recognize the divine-inspiration of the Qu'ran.

 

As to "gods" the Confucianist religion does not recognize that God or gods exist. Confucianism is concerned with morality, and with ritual, but not with the worship of actual deities (they do not exist, according to Confucian thought, and it really doesn't matter if they did).

 

Also, pantheist traditions (the universe is God) do not share the same belief in a single person (or personal) creator that the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions do.

 

Just some things to keep in mind. When we try to lump all the thousands of religions of the world into the same categories as Christianity, we get rather mixed up.

 

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share many links, but as religions, they are strikingly different in most respects to the other religions of the world. Just look at Southeast Asia or Africa for numerous examples.

 

So one can see, this isn't simply a matter of the name of the book you read, or what you call "God." What matters is how you define God, and what you think about God, or if God even matters at all. Many religions would say that simply, there is no God, or if there was a God, his existence would be totally irrelevant (obviously Christians, Jews and Muslims disagree).

 

One more interesting note, to Gnostic Christians, the God of the Bible (the one that Jews, Muslims, and the rest of Christianity identifies with) is actually an evil, material (and inferior) deity. The "true" God, is pure spirit, and Jesus, and the "elect" are parts of that aloof deity. The evil, inferior God of matter created the world, but he should not be worshipped, because he is wicked, according to them (obviously, those who believe God is good would find this idea slanderous).

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Guest wizzywig]

In a previous post, I promised to supply even more evidence for the reality of an intelligent Cosmic Designer of the universe (aka God). This is in response to Acid_Rain and others on this forum who demanded evidence for God that didn’t come from the Bible.

 

The following is a list of evidences for the intelligent design of our own life-giving sun-earth-moon system. It shows that the conditions for life on Earth are precariously balanced upon a sequence of circumstances that are so statistically unlikely as to be impossible by purely random processes (i.e., these conditions had to be designed by a Cosmic Superintellect):

 

1. galaxy type

> if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry

> if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.

 

2. parent star distance from center of galaxy

> if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.

> if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.

 

3. number of stars in the planetary system

> if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.

> if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.

 

4. parent star birth date

> if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.

> if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.

 

5. parent star age

> if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.

> if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.

 

6. parent star mass

> if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.

> if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.

 

7. parent star color

> if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.

> if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.

 

8. supernovae eruptions

> if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.

> if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.

> if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.

> if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

 

9. white dwarf binaries

> if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed

> if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

 

10. surface gravity (escape velocity)

> if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.

> if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.

 

11. distance from parent star

> if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.

> if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.

 

12. inclination of orbit

> if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.

 

13. orbital eccentricity

> if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

 

14. axial tilt

> if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.

> if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.

 

15. rotation period

> if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.

> if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

 

16. gravitational interaction with a moon

> if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.

> if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.

 

17. magnetic field

> if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.

> if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

 

18. thickness of crust

> if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.

> if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.

 

19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

> if greater: runaway ice age would develop.

> if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

 

20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

> if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.

> if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.

 

21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere

> if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

> if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.

 

22. water vapor level in atmosphere

> if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

> if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.

 

23. ozone level in atmosphere

> if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.

> if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.

 

24. atmospheric electric discharge rate

> if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.

> if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.

 

25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere

> if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.

> if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.

 

26. oceans to continents ratio

> if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.

> if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.

 

27. soil mineralization

> if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.

> if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.

 

28. seismic activity

> if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.

> if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.

 

29. gravitational interaction with a moon

> if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe

> if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak

 

30. Jupiter distance

> if greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth

> if less: Earth's orbit would become unstable

 

31. Jupiter mass

> if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable

> if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth

 

[Note: Jupiter seems to be a kind of cosmic "big brother" who swings through the cosmic neighborhood, sweeping debris, comets, and asteroids out of the way of "little brother" Earth.]

 

Astronomers and cosmologists have calculated the odds of a planet being formed by random chance processes that just happened to possess all of these conditions which make life possible on earth. The odds are one in 10^53, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the maximum number of planets in the universe, which is estimated at 10^22.

 

So the odds of a world like ours coming into existence by sheer chance are statistically impossible--virtually one chance in infinity. Add this to the fact that the Anthropic evidence (see earlier post, previous page) shows that the existence of the universe itself is equally improbable, and it becomes clear that the odds of both our Earth and our universe coming into existence by sheer random chance are virtually one in infinity squared. In other words, it is a statistical certainty that a Cosmic Designer exists and that this Designer intelligently and purposefully created the universe we inhabit.

 

(Source of this information: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe by Peter Douglas Ward, Donald Brownlee and The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross.)

 

--wiz

 

 

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

"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers

that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."

--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

 

<font size = 1><font color = gray>

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 18, 2000).]

[Guest Binks]

That does not prove that the universe was breated by an intelligence. It merely shows that the odds of a planet like earth developing randomly is astronomical. coincinentally, there are millions of multitudes of astronomical amounts of stars in the universe. Upon comparing the two odds, it becomes quite likely that it could happen randomly SOMEWHERE, if not in more than one place. Because, quite frankly, most of the conditions you listed DO occour frequently and naturally throughout the universe. They are not rare by any measure. And astrologers recently announced that there are many MANY more planets in the universe than they perviously thought. Nearly every star they have inspected so far have more planets in it's orbit than the milky way. Out of the 50 or so stars examined so far, at least one is thought to have a planet similar to earth's temperature-wise, daylength-wise, and atmosphere-wise. I believe it was in a recent issue of "Discover". And finally, you're assuming that we flesh and blood carbon-based humans are the only life that exist. Scientists forund small, silicon-based bacteria on the bottom of the ocean in which carbon chains were replaced with silicon chains, and water was replaced with ammonia. Lifeforms like this were theorized to have existed for over 50 years, and they can exist on planets with much harsher climates than earth.

 

[This message has been edited by Binks (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

With the evidence wiz posted and the info from a new book <u>Rare Earth</u>, plus an examination of exactly what it took for life to reach what it has, it becomes apparent that a designer is the only feasible solution.

 

Ted Byfield publishes The Report magazine with his wife and sons in Canada. It is an extremely good magazine that stands up for Christian thought and morality against the prevailing mood of the times.

 

I have heard that Ted is working on an enormous project, a complete history of Christianity. It could be very interesting. I think Ted and his wife are Orthodox, at least one of their sons is Catholic and I'm sure they will get Protestants to help them out too.

 

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

"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."

-Ted Byfield

 

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Guest Darth Zero]

Originally posted by Darth_Talon:

Your all to damn religous

 

 

I'm new here but Darth_Talon is damn right!!

I love Star Wars, I have since I was a kid, but to read into SW saying its Christian is over the top. I am a Odinist and a devout one at that and I too see simaralities been my religion and SW as mine is more about being at one with yourself and the surrounding enviroment and to do what is right but I would NEVER enforce my belives upon anyone else as it causes rifts between friends, family and even people you do not know. I guess what I'm trying to say is enjoy the moment

[Guest wizzywig]

Binks--

 

That does not prove that the universe was created by an intelligence. It merely shows that the odds of a planet like earth developing randomly is astronomical.

 

No, it shows that the odds are so astoundingly remote that they utterly transcend the astronomical. Physicist Paul Davies compares it to flipping a coin trillions and trillions of times, and having it come up heads every time. (And the actual odds of our fine-tuned universe and our fine-tuned planet actually exceed this example by many, many orders of magnitude.) If the coin comes up heads 10 times in a row, you say, "Wow, what a coincidence!" But after a few trillion "coincidences," you cannot help but conclude that the game has been deliberately and intelligently rigged. That is what our universe is like.

 

There are millions of multitudes of astronomical amounts of stars in the universe. Upon comparing the two odds, it becomes quite likely that it could happen randomly SOMEWHERE, if not in more than one place.

 

I already addressed this argument in my previous post. A very liberal and generous estimate of the number of planets in the universe is 10^<font size=1>22</font>. The estimate of the odds of a planet being formed that just happened to possess all of these conditions which make life possible on earth is around 10^<font size=1>53</font>. In all of the 15 billion cubic light-years of volume that the universe contains, there are not nearly enough planets to begin to approach odds of 1 in 10^<font size=1>53</font>. I know that may be hard for you to imagine, but competent physicists and cosmologists have done the math, and the Earth we live on is clearly a statistical impossibility.

 

And astrologers [i presume you mean astronomers] recently announced that there are many MANY more planets in the universe than they perviously thought. Nearly every star they have inspected so far have more planets in it's orbit than the milky way.

 

I don't know what you are trying to say in that statement, but I do know that most recent Hubble telescope surveys of stars show that stable planetary systems like our own are extremely rare. Most stars that appear to have planets seem to be orbited by Jupiter-size gasballs in eccentric orbits that would sweep planets like ours out of existence. The latest astronomical surveys are making the prospect of complex ET lifeforms like ourselves grow dimmer and dimmer with each star system surveyed.

 

Out of the 50 or so stars examined so far, at least one is thought to have a planet similar to earth's temperature-wise, daylength-wise, and atmosphere-wise.

 

I have never heard of this. For one thing, a planet the size of Earth would be too small to directly detect at interstellar distances, even with the Hubble space telescope. If you have a source for this information, I'd sure like to see it.

 

And finally, you're assuming that we flesh and blood carbon-based humans are the only life that exist. Scientists forund small, silicon-based bacteria on the bottom of the ocean in which carbon chains were replaced with silicon chains, and water was replaced with ammonia. Lifeforms like this were theorized to have existed for over 50 years, and they can exist on planets with much harsher climates than earth.

 

The appeal to exotic lifeforms is a common objection--I encounter it whenever I talk to people about the Anthropic Principle and Rare Earth concepts. But this argument has already been taken into account and it doesn't wash.

 

(By the way, I think you have mistaken some conjecture about possible silicon-based lifeforms that may exist in the universe with some actual scientific findings regarding what are called "extremophilic" and "thermophilic" lifeforms found near volcanic vents at the bottom of our own oceans. To my knowlege, no silicon-based lifeforms have ever been found to exist, but I am well aware of the extremophilic archaeans that have been found on the ocean floor--they are carbon-based, DNA-based lifeforms, however.)

 

About exotic lifeforms as an "answer" to the Anthropic and Rare Earth evidence that the universe is an artifact of an intelligent Cosmic Designer, I will quote Richard Meisner Ph.D. from a science fact article in ANALOG:

 

A second common reaction to examples of apparent "cosmic contrivance" is the argument in favor of extremely exotic lifeforms, able to develop independently of stars and planets. If "life" could exist under virtually any conditions, then we wouldn't be justified in considering a starry universe containing carbon to be such a special place.

 

But there are two important considerations to bear in mind. First, in many of the examples given above, a variation outside the allowable range results in a universe in which hydrogen and/or helium would be the only available elements. Specific plans for even a rudimentary biochemistry based only on these elements would be, shall we say, revolutionary. The degree of complexity required for life, much less intelligent life, just isn't easily come by with only hydrogen and helium to work with. Second, there exist a growing number of examples of cosmic fine-tuning pertaining not only to stars but to atoms themselves. As a quick example, cosmologist Paul Davies has noted that if the mass of the neutron were less by a few tenths of a percent, atoms probably couldn't exist. Presumably, even the most exotic lifeform would require the existence of atoms. ...

 

It's becoming apparent that few if any researchers would deny the importance of carbon for any viable form of life. The most detailed "exo-biochemistry" I've come across (an ingenious model based on liquid ammonia as a solvent) still requires carbon in its alternate forms of fats, lipids, amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins, and nu-cleic acids. ...

 

Although promising at first glance, the appeal to exotic lifeforms misinterprets the scope of the coincidences, and is too weak to explain away the appearance of remarkable fine-tuning in the structure of this universe.

 

I realize the evidence of the Anthropic Principle and the Rare Earth hypothesis must be very disturbing if you have an atheist or agnostic worldview, but the evidence is ironclad and irrefutable. In the beginning, God really did create the heavens and the Earth.

 

--wiz

 

 

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

 

"Faith is to believe that which you cannot see; the

reward of faith is to see that which you did not believe."

--ST. AUGUSTINE

 

<font size = 1><font color = gray>

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Guest wizzywig]

My original purpose in posting the scientific evidence for the reality of God was to respond to Acid_Rain327's reasonable challenge:

 

One thing I'd like to ask of you Christians, is one substantial piece of evidence that proves there is a God. ...

I want solid, justifiable proof. If you can give me one piece of evidence in God's existance, then you will have earned my respect, and I'll reconsider your entire arguement here.

 

I would be interested in any response that Acid_Rain327 or any of his atheist/agnostic brethren would care to post. I think I have provided what was demanded, and I am eager to learn what your thinking is now.

 

--wiz

 

 

 

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

"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers

that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."

--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

[Guest Acid_Rain327]

Well, I did read through all of that information, Wiz, but it didn't even come close to making me think differently about God creating the universe.

You've said several times that the odds of a finel-tuned universe coming into existance are statistically improbable, but what does that mean?

Who here can say this universe is finely tuned? I for one don't know anyone who has seen and knows everything about this universe. How can we see this universe as finely-tuned, if we cannot base that opinion on comparison to other universes?

It's like looking at a flower, and declaring that flower is the most beautiful, logically evolved flower to ever have existed, without having ever seen another flower before.

 

 

"The following is a list of evidences for the intelligent design of our own life-giving sun-earth-moon system. It shows that the conditions for life on Earth are precariously balanced upon a sequence of circumstances that are so statistically unlikely as to be impossible by purely random processes (i.e., these conditions had to be designed by a Cosmic Superintellect):"

 

These cannot, and should not be used as proof that God exists.

Those are all reactions to causes and actions which take place within the universe.

For Example:

 

1. galaxy type

> if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry

> if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.

 

These are all reactions known by astronomers, physicists and scientists, agreed - I've heard a good number of these before.

But, what they're basically saying is, that if you place a 50 pound weight on the surface of a lake, it'll sink. If you place a weight on the surface of the earth, it will be supported.

Granted, my example is of a more understandable scale, but the idea is still intact.

 

Getting back on subject, you say the creation of the universe in its current state is very, very near statistic impossibility.

Well, why not look at the other side, and say, "Hey, maybe our universe was the one exception, and yes, the creation of the Universe in its state had the odds against it, but maybe everything DID happen by coincidence. Just like flipping a coin, and having it land on heads - it's not unlikely, but it's not impossible.

Just open your mind to every possiblity - I am.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest wizzywig]

Acid_Rain327--

 

I appreciate you taking such a careful look at the information I presented. I understand your position that it “didn't even come close” to changing your mind about the reality of the Cosmic Designer. That is the normal first-impression response to these concepts—I’ve encountered it many times. As the evidence becomes clearer to people, many (not all, certainly, but many) eventually come see things differently. But if you remain convinced that this is all drivel, I won’t be offended.

 

If my conclusions about this evidence are valid, however, then this is the most important body of scientific evidence that has ever been discovered in the history of mankind. It is nothing less than ironclad evidence for the reality of God.

 

You've said several times that the odds of a finel-tuned universe coming into existance are statistically improbable, but what does that mean? Who here can say this universe is finely tuned? I for one don't know anyone who has seen and knows everything about this universe. How can we see this universe as finely-tuned, if we cannot base that opinion on comparison to other universes?

 

It's like looking at a flower, and declaring that flower is the most beautiful, logically evolved flower to ever have existed, without having ever seen another flower before.

 

I understand your analogy, but it’s actually a lot more complex than that. There are a number of conditions in the structure of the universe that are so delicately balanced and fine-tuned that any universe, if it varied from this condition by one part in billions, would be hostile to life.

 

One of my frustrations in a discussion like this is that posting on a forum hampers one’s ability to really develop the evidence and the argument at the kind of length the subject demands. I can refer you to some books that do the subject justice:

 

George Greenstein's The Symbiotic Universe (1988)

Cosmic Coincidences (1989) by John Gribbin and Martin Rees

God and the New Physics (1983) and The Mind of God (1993) by Paul Davies

(from a Christian perspective) The Creator and the Cosmos (rev. ed., 1995) by Hugh Ross.

 

Of course, most of us don’t have time to go out and track down and read books, even if we have the inclination to learn more. So, despite feeling hampered by the format of a forum post, I’ll do my best to reinforce my case in this post.

 

You ask, “Who here can say this universe is finely tuned?” My answer to that question begins with astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. Originally an atheist, he examined the evidence of the Anthropic Principle and concluded:

 

A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has mon-keyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

 

The centerpiece of the Anthropic proof for the existence of God is the Big Bang, which has been well-confirmed as the only viable model of the universe. At the moment of the Big Bang, everything that is--matter/energy, the three geometric dimensions of space, and the fourth dimension of time--blossomed from a single "quantum fluctuation" the size of a geometric point, swelling at the speed of light. Physicists and cosmologists are amazed that such a violent event as the Big Bang could have been so delicately, precisely balanced. In God and the New Physics, physicist Paul Davies observes,

 

Had the Big Bang been weaker, the cosmos would have soon fallen back on itself in a big crunch. One the other hand, had it been stronger, the cosmic material would have dispersed so rapidly that galaxies would not have formed. Either way, the observed structure of the universe seems to depend very sensitively on the precise matching of explosive vigour to gravitating power. ...

 

Had the explosion differed in strength at the outset by only one part in 10^<font size=1>60 </font>[that's the number 1 followed by 60 zeros], the universe we now perceive would not exist. To give some meaning to these numbers, suppose you wanted to fire a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. Your aim would have to be accurate to that same part in 10^<font size=1>60 </font>. . . .

 

The gravitational arrangement of the universe is bafflingly regular and uniform. There seems to be no obvious reason why the universe did not go berserk, expanding in a chaotic and uncoordinated way, producing enormous black holes. Channeling the explosive violence into such a regular and organized pattern of motion seems like a miracle. [emphasis added. Source: Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), pp. 179,181.

 

And Roger Penrose, Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, put it this way in his book The Emperor's New Mind:

 

The Creator's aim [in balancing all of the conditions that produced the universe out of the Big Bang explosion] must have been ... to an accuracy of

 

one part in 10^<font size=1>10</font>^<font size=1>123</font> .

 

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be '1' followed by 10^<font size=1>123</font> successive '0's! Even if we were to write a '0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe--and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure--we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

 

So creation (the Big Bang) was perfectly balanced. It was adjusted and fine-tuned to a tolerance of virtually one part in infinity. It had to be, or we would not exist. Had the Big Bang not been so delicately balanced, concludes George Greenstein in The Symbiotic Universe, "the cosmos would have winked out of existence the instant after it had been created. But for life to develop time is required, and lots of it--time for the long, winding course of cosmic history to blossom forth in the development of complex molecules, time for these molecules to congregate together and form the first primitive organism, and time for evolution to produce higher forms of life."

 

Greenstein, btw, is a Yale-educated astrophysicist and an atheist. I recommend his book to you because it is one of the clearest presentations anywhere of the Anthropic Principle (the body of evidence that shows that the universe appears to have been intelligently designed to bring forth life; "Anthropic" comes from the Greek word anthropos, meaning "man," and the Anthropic Principle has to do with the conditions necessary for human beings to arise and live in the universe). When Greenstein first heard about the Anthropic evidence assembled by physicist Brandon Carter, he began to jot down these conditions and cosmic coincidences in a notebook purely for his own personal amusement.

 

But the more notes he wrote down, the more disturbed he became. "The more I read," he relates in The Symbiotic Universe, "the more I became convinced that such 'coincidences' could hardly have happened by chance." This is not to say that Greenstein came to believe in God. He found the idea of God to be emotionally repulsive. He wrote that when he considered the idea, he experienced

 

an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust, and well-nigh impossible to mention it to friends without apology. ...

 

It was not for some time that I was able to place my finger on the source of my discomfort. It arises, I understand now, because the contention that we owe our existence to a stupendous series of coincidences strikes a responsive chord.

 

[George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (New York: Morrow, 1988), pp. 25-26.]

 

He rejected the idea of God because he could not reconcile the reality of God with a world filled with evil. So he came up with an alternate explanation: the universe and living things bootstrapped each other into existence. Life needs a universe to live in, and the universe needs living things in order to be “real” (according to quantum physics), so life and the universe formed a symbiosis. He does not develop the idea in any great detail (which is odd, seeing as that’s the title of his book), but that is how he got around the obvious conclusion that the evidences forces an objective mind to accept: "In the beginning, God created..."

 

I give Greenstein credit for honestly admitting that he rejected the God hypothesis on purely emotional grounds, despite the evidence.

 

When Richard D. Meisner, Ph.D., presented the Anthropic evidence in Analog, he suggested that the evidence showed that the universe is “the Ultimate Artifact"--the artifact of an intelligent Designer. He wrote:

 

One may feel inclined to apply the word "God" in this context. This is justifiable, although I tend to avoid the word simply because I've found almost without exception that it triggers an immediate positive or negative emotional response in the listener--most incon-ducive to good scientific thinking. Naturally, the artifact hypothesis is most attractive when stripped of its unfortunate historical trappings of superstition and dogma. . . .

 

Personally, if the artifact inference proved true, I would be most interested not in how the universe was fabricated, but why.

 

[source: Richard D. Meisner, "Universe--the Ultimate Artifact?," Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, Vol. 107, No. 4, April 1987, pp. 63-64.]

 

Cosmologist Paul Davies summed it up this way:

 

It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out.

 

 

Acid_Rain327, I didn’t really understand your 50 pound rock analogy. But the coin-flip analogy is quite apt to this situation. You say:

 

Getting back on subject, you say the creation of the universe in its current state is very, very near statistic impossibility.

 

Well, why not look at the other side, and say, "Hey, maybe our universe was the one exception, and yes, the creation of the Universe in its state had the odds against it, but maybe everything DID happen by coincidence. Just like flipping a coin, and having it land on heads - it's not unlikely [i presume you meant it’s unlikely], but it's not impossible.

 

Lecomte duNouy, a Nobel laureate scientist with expertise in probability science, once observed that any event that is less probable than one chance in 10^<font size=1>50</font> will never happen. To give you an idea of the size of that number, there are about 10^<font size=1>50</font> electrons in the entire universe. But Paul Davies calculated the likelihood of the perfectly balanced Big Bang that created our universe at 10^<font size=1>60</font>, which refers to an event that is a statistical impossibility—and that is only one condition of many in the body of Anthropic evidence. There are many more conditions that are extraordinarily unlikely according to random chance processes, and when you factor them all together, you get the unthinkably high odds against Creation that Roger Penrose cited (see his quote above).

 

So we come back to the coin toss analogy. The coin comes up heads ten times in a row, and we say, “Wow, what a coincidence!” A hundred heads in a row, and we think, “This is beyond coincidence! What gives?” Then a thousand heads in a row. Then a million. Then a billion. Then a trillion. Then trillions and trillions—-and we still haven’t reached the level of improbability that Roger Penrose and Paul Davies are describing!

 

You say:

 

Just open your mind to every possiblity - I am.

 

If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, then clearly you must acknowledge that, after trillions and trillions of coin tosses have come up heads in a row, then Somebody has deliberately rigged the game. I don't expect you to accept my p.o.v. purely on my say-so -- but if the evidence is as I have presented it, then the nonexistence of God requires more blind faith to accept than the existence of God. In other words, if my evidence is true, then the existence of a Cosmic Designer is infinitely more likely and rational than a universe that is the equivalent of trillions and trillions of coin-tosses in a row coming up heads.

 

I trust you when you say that you are open to every possibility, including the God possibility. I’m not saying that on the basis of these few posts on an Internet forum that you should totally invert your worldview. For all you know, I’m making it all up as I go along. That’s why I’m footnoting and quoting all these sources, because if you (or anyone else on this forum) are sincere about finding out if God is real or not, I want you to be able to go to those sources and confirm that I am not blowing smoke. I'm pointing you to the sources because I know that the evidence I’ve presented is solid and the conclusions, though astounding, are scientifically valid.

 

And if I’m right, then I have just introduced you to the most important information that has ever come your way.

 

--wiz

 

 

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

"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers

that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."

--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

 

<font size=1><font color = gray>

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 20, 2000).]

[Guest jedihorn1]

Originally posted by Darth Zero:

I'm new here but Darth_Talon is damn right!!

I love Star Wars, I have since I was a kid, but to read into SW saying its Christian is over the top. I am a Odinist and a devout one at that and I too see simaralities been my religion and SW as mine is more about being at one with yourself and the surrounding enviroment and to do what is right but I would NEVER enforce my belives upon anyone else as it causes rifts between friends, family and even people you do not know. I guess what I'm trying to say is enjoy the moment

Zero,

It is not over the top to compare Star Wars with Christianity because Star Wars is composed with various things taken from Christianity, and other religions as well. No one here is forcing beliefs on anyone else(and if they are then those people are wrong) The fact is everyone knows what this post is about by the topic. If you dont want to discuss it or if it bothers you, no one is forcing you to read it. The majority of people who have responded to this post have done so in a manner which is appropriet and are merley making civilized comments on their views. Those who have not, have been asked to do so. Bottom line: if you dont like religion or it's discussion, no one is forcing you to read or post. To do so is your choice.

 

 

 

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

Check out my site for SW news rumors, fan fiction and chat! <A HREF="http://jedihorn1.homestead.com/jedihorn1.html

There" TARGET=_blank>http://jedihorn1.homestead.com/jedihorn1.html

There</A> is no emotion, there is peace. There is no ignorance, only knowledge. There is no passion, there is serinity. There is no death, there is the Force. (GOD)-Jedi Code

[Guest Sebulba]

I'm Christian but i don't compare either sides but it sound intresting if it got 266 pages

[Guest Binks]

Wizzywig, I would gladly give you the source of my information when I find it. As of now it's laying in a stack of Discover mags in my living room.

 

And it's not entirely impossible to detect a planet the size of earth at distances that great. What astrophysicists do is measure the periodical fluctuations of the wavelength of a star's light. That lets them know that the planet's there, how big it is, how far away it is from the sun, and it's period of orbit. I'm not sure exactly how the figure out the rest, I must find that magazine.

 

And I realize you are an intelligent person, and you see my refusal to accept your arguement as the act of an athiest clinging to his belief. I assure you, I understand more than you could possibly imagine. If I had a month to spare I could go into detail and disprove nearly half of your conditions for life to have been created randomly.

 

For the less-intelligent people of the group, I'll explain it using a simple analogy:

 

1: "Hey, wanna buy this rock?"

 

2: "Uhhh..... what's it do?"

 

1: "It keeps tigers away."

 

2: "No it doesn't."

 

1: "Do you see any tigers around here?"

 

2: "I guess not. Ok. I'll buy it!"

 

Your conditions sound nice in theory, but like I said before, most of those conditions ALREADY exist in the universe. Kind of how the tigers are ALREADY away from the rock. It ain't really keeping them away. And a condition isn't really a condition unless it hasn't already been completed. I assure you this is true. If greater scientists had not already disproved the theories you quote, a whole lot more people would have already accepted them. News like that would have spread quickly and become the cornerstone for Christians attacking Athiests' beliefs.

 

And even if you are correct, and the universe has a designer, who's to say it's YOUR God? Every religion on earth has different dieties they believe created the universe. They've had "miracles" too.

 

And last but certainly not least..

An all-powerful, omnipotent entity would have absolutely NO reason to create life, or the universe for that matter. Christianity disproves itself in this manner. And I hate it when people give me crap like "God just wanted somebody to love him!" what a bunch of crap. I'm supposed to believe that a being with all the power in existance has SECURITY issues? Noooo..... You gotta compare it to Bill Gates. You think Bill Gates spends his time playing with Ants? Of course not. the only conceivable thing I can see an all-powerful God doing with his time is nothing. If you have all the power there is, you really don't have any need to do anything but rest. Explain that to me.

 

[Guest SABIANSIX]

Well Barnabas let me just say that even Christ said that you would be persecuted for your faith in him. Bravo for drawing your line in the sand. I may follow St.Peter around for a few hundred years, but I will catch up with you to say "hello" somewhere down the road. Until then, take care.

[Guest chewie's hairbrush]

Wiz et al.

 

With reference to anthropic principle. Please take a look at the views of these two gentlemen:

Michael Ikeda, Statistical Research Division, Bureau of the Census & Bill Jefferys

, Department of Astronomy, University of Texas. Find their thoughts at http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html

 

Be warned there's some big boys maths.

[Guest wizzywig]

Binks—

 

Thanks for the interaction. I’m “road-testing” some concepts for a book I’m writing that will be published this fall, and it’s very helpful to have people like you, Acid_Rain, and others challenge these concepts.

 

Re:

And it's not entirely impossible to detect a planet the size of earth at distances that great. What astrophysicists do is measure the periodical fluctuations of the wavelength of a star's light. That lets them know that the planet's there, how big it is, how far away it is from the sun, and it's period of orbit. I'm not sure exactly how the figure out the rest, I must find that magazine.

 

Yes, astronomers use this sort of inferential method of detecting extrasolar planets based on a star’s “wobble” under the influence of the suspected planet, but I believe the planet must be quite a bit more massive than our Earth is in order to be detected in this way (if I’m wrong, I’ll happily stand corrected).

 

And I realize you are an intelligent person, and you see my refusal to accept your arguement as the act of an athiest clinging to his belief.

 

Actually, no. I don’t think enough evidence has been put forward to persuade you that an atheist position is the wrong one. If I were in your place, I wouldn’t be persuaded to a theistic POV at this point. I would perhaps be interested in more evidence, I would want to know more, but I wouldn’t consider what has been put forward so far to be adequate reason to up-end my worldview. So I don’t blame you at all for the position you take.

 

Your “you wanna buy this rock” analogy is flawed, IMO. I think I understand what you mean by this analogy. You are saying that the mathematical constants of the universe are “just-so.” There is no point asking why the delicate ratio between the gravitational and electromagnetic forces is what it is or why the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second—they just are. I think that’s what you mean when you write:

 

Your conditions sound nice in theory, but like I said before, most of those conditions ALREADY exist in the universe. Kind of how the tigers are ALREADY away from the rock. It ain't really keeping them away. And a condition isn't really a condition unless it hasn't already been completed. I assure you this is true.

 

If I read you correctly, then your assumption is exactly what I once assumed to be true--before I first began to study the anthropic arguments about 13 years ago. I thought that the laws and constants of the universe simply had to be as they are. But then I began reading Stephen Hawking and John Wheeler and Paul Davies and George Greenstein, and they were all telling me that the laws of the universe were actually “written” at the moment of the Big Bang. This was hard for me to accept at first, but now I realize that it certainly is true. The universe that we live in did not have to be as it is. The “laws” and constants of the universe could have been very different. They were, in effect, “selected” at the moment of the Big Bang. Whether they were intelligently selected or merely selected by random chance is the $64 question—but regardless of how they were selected, any astronomer or cosmologist or astrophysicist worth his salt will tell you that this universe that we live in is not a universe that had to be.

 

And those scientists will also tell you that if the conditions of our universe had not been as they are, if even one of them had been off by as little as (in some cases) a fraction of a percent, the Big Bang would not have produced our life-giving universe. It would have produced either nothing but black holes or nothing by featureless hydrogen gas. Life would have been impossible. This is not me saying this. This is not even a Christian physicist like Hugh Ross saying this. It is astrophysicists like Paul Davies and George Greenstein (neither of whom is a Christian) who are making these statements, based on the physical evidence and hard mathematics. And no serious scientist refutes their statements (Hawking has said much the same in A Brief History of Time.

 

I know this is hard for you to accept, but when you argue the point, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Hawking, Wheeler, Davies, Greenstein, and people who are a lot more brilliant and knowledgeable than I am.

 

If greater scientists had not already disproved the theories you quote, a whole lot more people would have already accepted them. News like that would have spread quickly and become the cornerstone for Christians attacking Athiests' beliefs.

 

Actually, no. The Anthropic Principle is really nothing more than an interpretation of a body of evidence that is well-established, irrefutable scientific fact. We know what all of these constants and laws of the universe are, and they are beyond dispute. The AP simply correlates these scientific facts which are required in order for life to exist, and it makes a statistical analysis of the probability that all of them could have simply arisen by random chance—and when that analysis is made, the probability becomes remote beyond belief. Once the evidence of the AP is properly understood, a person realizes that it requires more “blind faith” to believe in atheism and blind chance than is required to believe in a Cosmic Designer.

 

There is nothing here for “greater scientists” to “disprove,” because it is merely an analysis of existing and well-established evidence. The evidence is indisputable. What is in dispute is the interpretation of that evidence, and there are many highly renowned scientists (whom I have named and footnoted) who believe that the AP interpretation is highly credible.

 

Now, why haven’t Christians seized upon the Anthropic Principle in order to attack Atheism? In large part, because most Christians either don’t understand the AP or they reject its implications. I would say that most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. In other words, they believe that the earth was created by God in six literal 24-hour days, at a time approximately 6,000 years ago. The AP violates that idea. It holds that the universe was created by the Big Bang at a time somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years ago. That is a big difference. And that is why very few Christians have seized upon the AP as support for their beliefs.

 

And even if you are correct, and the universe has a designer, who's to say it's YOUR God? Every religion on earth has different dieties they believe created the universe. They've had "miracles" too.

 

I have not said who “my God” is, have I? I am not contending for any private interpretation of “God.” I am only saying that the evidence clearly shows that the universe is an artifact of an intelligent Cosmic Designer.

 

As to this:

An all-powerful, omnipotent entity would have absolutely NO reason to create life, or the universe for that matter. [Etc.]

 

This is pure speculation on your part. All I know for sure (and yes, I am 100 percent certain) is that an intelligent Cosmic Designer did in fact create the universe. Why the Cosmic Designer chose to do so is certainly beyond our ability to adequately speculate upon. A God who could fine-tune all the forces of the universe certainly has purposes and intentions that are beyond my capacity to guess—and beyond your capacity as well. All we know for sure, by looking at the anthropic evidence, is that the Cosmic Designer has a particular interest in living beings, because the Cosmic Designer clearly and indisputably went to great lengths to make sure that the universe was able to produce and nurture life.

 

The “Bill Gates playing with Ants” analogy is meaningless. Your point is that a God big enough to create a vast universe wouldn’t care about tiny little things like human beings. But that misses the point. Our sense of scale is clearly not the same as God’s sense of scale. When you look at the exquisite design of the quantum universe, you see that God was as interested in the careful balance and functioning of the microworld of quarks and electrons as in the balance and functioning of galaxies and stars. You may find it hard to see yourself as anything but an ant in God’s sight, but the evidence of the anthropic principle is that there are no barriers of scale in God’s thinking. The scale of the quark or of the human being or of the whirling galaxies are all of interest to God. The evidence of the AP proves this is so.

 

To chewie's hairbrush—

 

Thanks for the link to the anti-anthropic principle piece by Ikeda and Jeffreys.

 

I read it carefully and found it peculiar in that:

 

(1) it primarily targets Hugh Ross (it makes no reference to some of the more prominent popularizers of the AP such as Paul Davies, Barrow and Tipler, etc.);

 

(2) it pointedly attacks belief in what it calls “the supernatural origin of the universe” (I do not consider my views to have anything to do with the “supernatural”—I believe the AP indicates that the universe is an artifact of an intelligent Designer, but one should not assume that I see that the Designer is a “supernatural” being; I do not consider God to be “supernatural” in the way that term is usually defined and understood);

 

and

 

(3) the authors limit their discussion to the Weak Anthropic Principle, saying:

 

In this FAQ we will discuss only the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), since it is uncontroversial and generally accepted. We will not discuss the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), much less the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle :-)

 

The WAP proves nothing. The SAP proves everything. Their argument is directed at a straw man of their own making, and does not address the issues I raise, which are Strong Anthropic issues. (It would be interesting to see a debate between the head of the University of Texas physics department, John Wheeler, and his colleague Bill Jeffreys on the real and robust issues of the Strong Anthropic Principle.) The paper does contain some interesting speculations, however, about which known deity might best fit the requirements of an Anthropic Creator.

 

Again, chewie's hairbrush, I appreciate you bringing this paper to my attention.

 

--wiz

 

 

 

 

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

"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers

that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."

--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

[Jedi Calypso]

well, wiz, once again, i think you did a great job, unfortunatly, im not the one who needs to be convinced....

-Calypso

[Guest Conor]

Just out of curiosity, how does one go about forcing their beliefs on others?

 

Maybe if there was sleep deprivation, brain washing and torture involved.

 

I would be interested in how this 'forcing beliefs' could take place over the internet.

 

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

"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."

-Ted Byfield

[Guest Darth Dred]

Thank you Conor for bringing up that point. I have to say that I am getting really tired of people who say they believe in nothing getting offended when you tell them that there is something. Even when you tell them they should accept the idea that there could be something.

If they were so "open-minded" then shouldn't they be willing to accept the possibility that they could be wrong. Hehehe. See why being "open-minded" isn't really as great as they crack it up to be.

[Guest chewie's hairbrush]

Wiz.

 

(2) it pointedly attacks belief in what it calls “the supernatural origin of the universe” (I do not consider my views

to have anything to do with the “supernatural”—I believe the AP indicates that the universe is an artifact of an

intelligent Designer, but one should not assume that I see that the Designer is a “supernatural” being; I do not

consider God to be “supernatural” in the way that term is usually defined and understood);

 

You've tweeked by curosity. Please explain your definition of supernatural or perhaps more accurately your dislike of the word.

 

I wasn't going to reply but now that I have. In response to your first point about the article, I believe they are exploring the principle therefore what they've got to say is not an attack of the work of one person but the underlying theory. Also if they disprove the WAP then I suppose it follows that the SAP falls too.

 

Oh I wish I hadn't said the above, its not my work and I don't have any great need to defend it. I was just trying to point to an authorative alternative to the acceptance of the AP and hence the reason I don't find it persuasive.

[Guest wizzywig]

chewie's hairbrush--

 

I read your post this morning; sorry it took me all day to get back to you, but I've been on deadline today, and just got free a few moments ago.

 

You ask:

 

Please explain your definition of supernatural or perhaps more accurately your dislike of the word.

 

My problem with the word "supernatural" is that we use it to describe ghosts, goblins, witches, monsters, faeries, sprites, dragons, etc., etc. In other words, it is a term that describes creatures of myth and fantasy. Whatever the Cosmic Designer may be, we cannot say that the Cosmic Designer is a creature of myth or fantasy.

 

What the word "supernatural" connotes to me is something that arbitrarily and capriciously and inexplicably interferes with the laws of nature, generally in a way that violates reason and common sense. I think many rationalists have a similar problem with such concepts as "the supernatural" and "God" and "miracles" and such, because they seem like offenses against reason.

 

 

The Scottish rationalist philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) once wrote, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature."[David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), p. 114.] That word "violation" says it all--it's a word with strong pejorative connotations. It's a word we use to describe an interference, an affront, or even an act of rape. I think many atheists reject the notion of God because they see God as "supernatural" and thus as an offense to reason.

 

In his novel It, horror writer Stephen King puts it this way:

 

It's offense you maybe can't live with, because it opens up a crack inside your thinking, and if you look down into it you see there are live things down there, and they have little yellow eyes that don't blink and there's stink down in that dark, and after awhile you think maybe there's a whole other universe down there, a universe where a square moon rises in the sky, and the stars laugh in cold voices, and some of the triangles have four sides, and some have five, and some of them have five raised to the fifth power of sides. ... Go to your church and listen to your stories about Jesus walking on the water, but if I saw a guy doing that I'd scream and scream and scream. Because it wouldn't look like a miracle to me. It would look like an offense.

 

[stephen King, It (New York: Viking Press, 1986), p. 430.]

 

My own God-given intelligence revolts against the idea that God would make an orderly universe that can be understood by a rational intelligence--then proceed to ravage and disfigure its orderliness with irrational and arbitrary violations. That truly would be an offense.

 

So I don't see the Cosmic Designer as a "supernatural" being, to be put in the same class with mythical gods and ghosts and elves and wizards and dragons. The Cosmic Designer is of a different level of reality than ours, certainly, but is not an arbitrary and capricious mythical deity. The Anthropic Principle shows that the mind of the Cosmic Designer is extremely orderly and purposeful, not arbitrary at all--subtle, as Einstein said, but not malicious.

 

C.S. Lewis, in Miracles has pictured reality as having many different levels, like different floors of a building. He has referred to them as different Natures, one Nature stacked upon another, to any height God pleases. This is a good analogy to my thinking. God does not violate the created order with supernatural invasions. Rather, God becomes involved with our created order, one Nature descending to another Nature, always respecting and obeying (never violating or offending) deep laws of reality.

 

 

Another thing about the "supernatural": We tend to think of the "supernatural" as an evanescent and not quite real plane of existence, a sort of insubstantial, semi-transparent realm. We picture ghosts and spirits that we can see through and that pass through walls. I do not think of God in that way.

 

I think the Nature from which God descends to our Nature is more "real," more "solid," more "substantial" than our own realm of reality. Our own realm of reality, after all, is really digital in nature--atomic structure, time, perception, consciousness, and so forth all being shown to have a digital, discrete, on-off, 1/0 state, much like a computer program. I believed (based on evidence that I could go into some other time) that in reality it is God and God's level of reality that is utterly real, and our reality that is insubstantial and virtual by comparison.

 

In some ways I think our own reality is analogous to a computer program. I’m not saying it IS a computer program (as Frank Tipler suggests in The Physics of Immortality) nor do I suggest that reality is in any way an illusion. Reality is REAL. But as John Wheeler has said, the universe appears to be one great THOUGHT—the thought, I would add, of the Cosmic Designer. That is the image of reality to which the Anthropic evidence brings us.

 

I'm not sure if I've communicated this well. I hope you get the picture I’m trying to convey. These are some of the concepts I'm tinkering with in my book. I'd be interested in any impressions you might have, chewie's hairbrush (or anyone else who'd care to comment).

 

You say:

Also if they disprove the WAP then I suppose it follows that the SAP falls too.

 

The Anthropic Principle is alive and well, I assure you. No version of the AP, not the WAP or the SAP, has ever been disproved—only disapproved of by certain people who object to the theological implications. (There are other versions, such as the CRAP—I believe that refers to Frank Tipler’s Omega Point Theory, which has been ridiculed as the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle; I completely discount that version myself.)

 

The Weak Anthropic Principle states that the universe is as it appears, with all its life-giving constants and natural laws, because if it were not, there would be no one around to comment on the fact. The WAP is a tautology. It proves nothing.

 

The Strong Anthropic Principle states that not only is the WAP true, but that the universe is very precisely fine-tuned to give rise to conscious life. It is intimately connected with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The head of the physics dept. at the University of Texas, John Wheeler, is one of the early proponents of the SAP, and he remains a proponent to this day. He is, by the way, the physicist who coined the term “black holes.”

 

There are a number of authoritative scientists who object to the SAP, but when you look at their reasoning, you always find a philosophical (i.e., atheistic) axe to grind. I detected that same axe-to-grind in the paper by Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys. They have a clear motive for rejecting the theological implications of the Anthropic Principle.

 

As Stephen Hawking observed:

 

The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. … I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.

 

Stephen Hawking's Universe[/i], (New York: William Morrow, 1985), p. 121.]

 

We have entered a fascinating realm of speculation, have we not?

 

--wiz

 

 

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

"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers

that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."

--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

 

<font size = 1><font color=gray>

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 24, 2000).]

[Guest wizzywig]

chewie's hairbrush, et al--

 

This morning, I reread the "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" by Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys ( http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html ). A second reading made their point even more clear, and I see the underlying fallacy of their argument more clearly now.

 

One thing that confused me was that they were attacking the "fine-tuned universe" concept, which is a part of the SAP, not the WAP, and that was baffling because they claim to be discussing only the WAP. Even now, I don't understand how they can claim to be critiquing the WAP and "fine-tuning" in the same breath. It makes no sense.

 

But they say:

 

We will show that if assumptions (a-c) are true, then the observation that our universe is "life-friendly" can never be evidence against the hypothesis that the universe is governed solely by naturalistic law. Moreover, "fine-tuning," in the sense that "life-friendly" laws are claimed to represent only a very small fraction of possible universes, can even undermine the hypothesis of a supernatural origin of the universe; and the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more this hypothesis can be undermined.

 

In somewhat different terms, I had this same argument with someone else on this forum. The Ikeda-Jefferys argument essentially goes like this: "You claim that the universe is both fine-tuned for life and it is life-friendly. Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either the universe is delicately fine-tuned and it is very difficult for life to arise, and life can only arise under the most precisely balanced conditions--OR the universe is life-friendly, and life can easily arise."

 

Ikeda and Jefferys then proceed to translate this argument into statistical/logical symbols and equations to make their case. The whole statistical thing is mumbo-jumbo. Their case could have just as easily been phrased in easily understood declarative English sentences, as I rephrased it above. It means the same thing.

 

But their case is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of "life-friendly." And that is what leads them into the error of saying:

 

In essence, we see that the intelligent design folks who make the anthropic argument are really trying to have it both ways: They want observation of F [their symbol for "life-friendly conditions"] to undermine N [their symbol for "Naturalistic law"], and they also want observation of ~F ["life-unfriendly conditions"] to undermine N. That is, they want any observation whatsoever to undermine N! [in this, they are very much mistaken!--wiz] But the error is that the anthropic argument does not undermine N, it supports N. They can have one of the prongs of their argument, but they can't have both.

 

Ikeda and Jefferys have misunderstood the meaning of "life-friendly" in the Strong Anthropic argument. (I'm assuming that Hugh Ross, whom they criticize, used that term. I don't think I've ever called the universe "life-friendly" in my own writing about the Anthropic Principle.)

 

The fact is, that even when you look at all of the life-giving conditions and constants in the Anthropic evidence, you still have a universe that, while capable of producing life, is overwhelmingly hostile to life. Life is still remotely improbable even after you add up all the unlikely conditions of the Anthropic Principle. It is still a universe of hard vacuum, extreme heat near the stars, extreme cold practically everywhere else. The building blocks of life can only be found in a very rare places under very rare conditions. I would not call the universe "life-friendly" at all!

 

Since I reject the F value (the "life-friendly" value) in Ikeda and Jeffery's equation, their argument against the Anthropic Principle (WAP, SAP, or otherwise) completely evaporates.

 

In fact, their argument totally supports mine. Because in my book, I point out that three levels of "miracle" have to occur in order for life to exist. (By "miracle," I do not mean a supernatural event. I mean something that is so remotely improbable by random chance processes that it could have only occurred by the operation of a Superintellect.)

 

The three levels of "miracle" I'm talking about are:

 

1. First, a fine-tuned universe must be designed and intelligently created in order for life to be even remotely possible. The evidence of the Anthropic Principle is proof that this has occurred.

 

2. Next, a fine-tuned Sun-Earth-Moon system must be designed and intelligently created in order for life to be even remotely possible. Few people appreciate how finely tuned our Solar system is to produce life. I recommend a book that my friend Conor first brought to my attention. It is called Rare Earth, published in February of this year (authors: Ward and Brownlee), and it shows how incredibly fine-tuned our solar system is to nurture life. For example, it shows that if we did not have a moon of the precise size and properties of our Moon, life on Earth would be impossible. And again, if the planet Jupiter were not positioned where it is, life on Earth would be highly unlikely (due to collisions with space debris--the big gas ball patrols the edges our solar system, sweeping asteroids and comets out of our way). And there are dozens of similar conditions. So our fine-tuned home planet is another hugely improbable condition for life.

 

3. Next, the origin of the first living organism is so statistically improbable as to be impossible. (I can go into that sometime, too.)

 

In these posts, I have not done much to develop Nos. 2 and 3, but I have developed them at length in my book.

 

The point is, when you factor these three "miracles" together--any one of which is so statistically improbable as to be virtually impossible by random chance means, one can only conclude (as astronomer Fred Hoyle observed):

 

A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

 

--wiz

 

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

"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers

that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."

--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

 

<font size = 1><font color=gray>

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 24, 2000).]

[Guest ShadeShifter]

To wizzywig:

 

I can't wait for your book to come out. Do you suggest any books for background reading?

 

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

[Guest chewie's hairbrush]

Thanks for the explanation wiz. Just to clarify for my benefit. You believe that god is beyond the nature we perceive, extra-natural if you like (I believe in using at least one invented word per day ) but not beyond the "whole" of nature. Its the connotations of supernatural that's the problem. Interesting.

 

Strangley, whilst I was typing this something occurred to me. I'm going to share it although I suspect I'll regret it. Though I've decided to post it in Kurgan's creed poll because it makes more sense there.

 

Oops just tried and I can't coz it seems to have been pruned. I'll save it for another day.

 

[This message has been edited by chewie's hairbrush (edited May 25, 2000).]