The basis of atheist belief - Part 4

By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,

“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”

Well, each and every one of these posts is giving”
Examples of facts,
Examples that are based on scientific facts,
Facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists
That show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the “Facts” that we observe.

Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God.
In other words, According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.

Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist.

Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of the discussion. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations on the origin of the universe was acceptable, there wouldn't be any more theories proposed. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable or workable.

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist.

Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being precisely (We cannot overemphasis the term precisely) as they are for the existence of intelligent life.

That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values. In fact, science tells us that the natural range of POSSIBLE values for the constants and qualities of our universe is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000000.

That being the case, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.

I think that it’s important to remember that the values of these constants and qualities were not something that evolved, nor are they something that “settled in” as the universe aged. In order for a life sustaining universe to exist, these constants were “put in” at the Big Bang. They had to have been there prior to Planck time.

As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos are unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, arbitrary if you will. They are independent of each other in every way but one. The ONE thing in common, in fact the ONLY thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them are needed to be exactly as they are in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet.

So: While there are several dozen constants and quantities, the most fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the Ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.

. A change of only 1 part in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in the Gravitational constant would prevent life from existing in this universe.

A change of only 1 part in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in the Weak Force would prevent life from existing in this universe.

. If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life of any kind.

Remember, these values had to be in place prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, 10 ^ - 43 seconds after the Singularity.

. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.

Any variation in either direction more than that and - no universe.

. The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” prior to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.

That’s 1,230 zeros.

Think about that for a moment. It’s important.

If the entropy per baryon hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang, to EXACTLY this specification, our life supporting universe would not exist. If you’ve been able to make yourself think that all of this was just a really, really, really lucky accident, I can only conclude that you are desperately afraid of the most realistic and obvious metaphysical alternative.

Because these constants and qualities are independent of and unrelated to each other, and as astronomical the odds of any one of them being just exactly the right value, to find ALL of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension.

To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100and add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120 + 100, and add to that . . . and so on for all of the several DOZEN constants and quantities. And those are your odds of this life supporting universe coming into being by accident or chance.

If any one of these constants were off by the amount just described, we would not exist. Just how strong IS your faith in “no God?”

We need to seriously consider what this means. I don’t see how anyone can a priori reject this EVIDENCE for Creator God yet call themselves and honest seeker after truth. This type of evidence demands an explanation.

The Creation Event and its metaphysical implications is so serious a problem for those who have devolved into Scientism that they are now claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that something can have a beginning without a cause. Here are some examples of what atheist scientists are saying.

Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”

Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”

Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”

On the “bright” side David Hume stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause.”

Well, back in his day, when atheists were still hopeful that their faith system would prevail, that might have been possible for him to say. It is my belief that if Hume had known that Christianity would prove so resistant to destruction, he would have joined today’s atheist scientists in throwing off all restraints, put his integrity on the shelf, proposed ever more ridiculous scenarios and in that manner he would have increased his intellectual stature among the atheist crowd.

A universe with a beginning is disconcerting for atheist scientists because what existed before the Big Bang can’t be detected by observation or by the laws of physics. In fact the very concept of “before” is incoherent regarding the Big Bang because there wasn’t any such thing. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any time, or space, or matter or laws of physics to govern that matter.

Whatever produced The Big Bang, produced those laws. As stated a few pages back, if the universe came into being without using the laws of physics, more than that, before the laws of physics were even in place, then that is the working definition of a miracle. Miracles as we all know are not allowed into the vocabulary of an atheist.

There may be a black door in front of an atheist but if s/he doesn't believe in black doors then by golly that atheist is going to call the door another colour - any colour! as long as it isn't black.

Admittedly, some scientists feel compelled to tentatively acknowledge the obvious.

Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”

Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias - “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.

Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

It is the atheist’s determination to not follow any evidence that might point to God that keeps him from accepting the obvious. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

When there are several possible answers to the ideas that arise re: Beginnings, how does one keep internal bias from discarding opposing evidence or a conflicting hypothesis of equal validity? In this case, atheists don’t. They go with their bias.

The next post will continue with this topic of fine tuning.