The economy is so bad that atheist scientists are now doing standup comedy.
Here’s is a line by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson that to me is positively hilarious. In his comment,
- He’s referring to the constants and qualities that hold the cosmos together.
- He’s referring to the relationship between these constants that allow our biosphere to not only exist but to support intelligent life.
During his routine, Mr. Dyson says, “There are many lucky accidents in physics. Without such lucky accidents, life as we know it would be impossible.”
If you can’t see the humour in that chances are very good that you’re an atheist.
Other atheists look at the following information and say that to conclude that the evolution of "Us" was something other than luck or an amazing coincidence, i.e., God, is “jumping to conclusions.”
I feel like I’m repeating myself an awful lot but there are so many atheists who seem to have their feet planted firmly in thin air. They place their faith in pseudo evidence that hasn’t been thought through AT ALL! So, I’ll review once again.
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 just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values. In fact, the natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 1000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.
If this number was conceptualized as a dartboard, the distance from one side of the dartboard to the other side would extended across the length of our entire Milky Way Galaxy. I’ll return to this comparison a little later. That being the case, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.
It’s important to remember that the values of these constants and qualities were not something that evolved, or something that “settled in” as the universe aged. These constants were “put in” at the Big Bang. As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, even arbitrary. In reality, they are independent of each other except for one thing. The only thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them need to be exactly as they are in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet. While there are around 100 constants and qualities, 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.
. What scientists, what ATHEIST scientists call an “astonishing coincidence” or “a lucky accident” is the following list of facts.
. Prior to the Big Bang, the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism had to have been exactly as it was or else at 10 to -17 second after the start of the singularity, the necessary binding of helium -4, beryllium -8 and carbon -12 would not have occurred and life as we know it would not have appeared.
. The exact number and types of neutrinos at 1 second after the beginning of the Big Bang had to be in place or the expansion rate would have prohibited the formation of our universe.
. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by 1 part in 1,00000000000, 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, 0000000, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.
. If the strong force were a long-range force (like electromagnetism or gravity) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.
Pretty lucky for us, huh, that all this just happened by chance? You sure wouldn’t want to think that maybe there was some intelligence behind this “amazing coincidence.” But that’s not all.
. If the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.
. If the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.
. The gravitational constant must be EXACTLY 10 ^ 40 weaker than the Strong Nuclear Force or again, no us. For those that are interested, that’s ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force.
Pretty lucky for us that it just happened to work out that way. I've been told that to suggest that it’s anything more than an amazing coincidence is jumping to conclusions.
A change of only 1 part in 10, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Nuclear Force would prevent life from existing.
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.
Remember, these values had to be put in prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, prior to 10 ^ - 43 second after the singularity. How lucky do you feel so far?
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 greater than that in EITHER direction and - no universe.
Now, I mentioned this galaxy wide dartboard comparison. If the universe was an accident the values of these potential constants and quantities could potentially and theoretically fall anywhere within that area. The equation that I just gave you gives us a target within our galaxy wide dart board (get a picture of that) that is less than 2.5 centimetres in diameter. For us to exist, the values HAD to fall within that range.
Listen up now because here comes what atheists call the really lucky part. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, one that we come upon, according to atheists, by accident and not by jumping to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is like blindfolding yourself, spinning around ten times and then randomly firing a dart at our GALAXY wide dart board and hitting the target exactly in the centre of its 2.5 centimetre disk. Missing that target by any amount and - that’s right, no universe.
What I find sad and absolutely amazing is that if you’re an atheist, none of the above will be enough to convince you to consider Creator God as part of the equation. So let me use a different example.
The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” PRIOR to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 1,230 zeros. If that hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang our life supporting universe would not exist. This requires an extraordinarily precise arrangement of mass and energy. To hit this exactly right by accident, we would put on our blindfold, spin around ten times, and according to atheists, fire a dart randomly at the galaxy sized dart board and hit the exact CORRECT PROTON.
Let me put it in a slightly different manner. The distance from one edge of the Milky Way galaxy to the other edge is the potential distance or range for our constants and quantities. Travelling at the speed of light, that’s 100,000 years of travel.
. If the cosmological constant had varied any more than 2.5cms, no us, no life.
. If the entropy per baryon had varied any more than the width of ONE PROTON - no us, no life of any kind - No Universe!
And these aren’t even the most exquisite constants! Yet all 50 of them HAD to be exactly as they are AT the Big Bang or no life. That is why these atheist scientists have said:
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.”
Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
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.”
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.
These are not some religious nut cases. Nor are these men jumping to the conclusion of Creator God in the absence of evidence to the contrary. These are hard-core atheists who are simply stating the obvious. Of this particular bunch, only Anthony Flew had the integrity to go with the evidence. Only Anthony Flew doesn't need the approval of his peer group to feel ok about himself.
If, by this point your mind isn’t numb with the credulity and gullibility that atheists force themselves to live with, I just don’t know what it would take to get you to throw up your hands and give up. I mean, just how blind does a person have to be before s/he willingly stops demanding the right to drive the car? This is not a joking matter any more. Atheist scientists have discovered this information. They know it, but obviously maintaining their bias against Creator God is worth throwing away their integrity. It’s embarrassing. It’s shameful. It should be a crime for them to teach “The Universe As An Accident” to your children.
Still not impressed? Listen up. Remember, these constants and qualities are independent of and unrelated to each other. There's no natural reason for any one of them to be just as they are. So, as astronomical are the odds of any one of them being just right for a life sustaining universe, 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 10^100, add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, which gives you 10 ^ 100 + 120 + . . . and so on for ALL 50 of the constants and quantities.
Still not impressed? Science states that anything beyond 10 ^ 50 is the same as impossible. On the one hand Stephen Hawking has said “If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes, and only one of those grains of sand was a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit.” Yet on the other hand we know that Hawking remains an atheist. In the face of this evidence, why would Hawking or any atheist for that matter continue to search for natural solutions? They have to. In order to maintain their dogmatic, definite, deliberate denial of God’s existence, atheists must believe that the impossible is possible.
And that is why atheists say that we’re really, really lucky to be here.
That is why atheists say all this is just an amazing coincidence.
That is why atheists say there is no evidence for Creator God
That is why atheists say that any one who suggests that Creator God is involved in this miracle of life is just jumping to conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Could you please take a course in statistics before you post this again? Please?
Look, the odds against any one hand in 5 card stud poker are 6,000,000:1. Yet, amazingly, every hand you are dealt is the hand you have. The odds are overwhelmingly against it, yet there you hold it! It's amazing! It's . . . oh, forget it. Be ignorant, I can't stop you.
I think Makarios has just created a new logical fallacy!
Argumentum Ad Zerum!
Adding more zeroes does not make you correct.
Adding more posts with the same debunked or misconstrued concepts does not make you correct.
I'm also guessing that I've hit a nerve somewhere, as you have been astutely avoiding responding to me. Perhaps I should use the Fundie debate method and claim that as a victory?
This argument is explored in more, and better, detail in this blog post (link).
--
Stan
During his routine, Mr. Dyson says, “There are many lucky accidents in physics. Without such lucky accidents, life as we know it would be impossible.”
If you can’t see the humour in that chances are very good that you’re an atheist.
I can, indeed, see humour in this statement. However, it stems from your apparent ignorance that "life-as-we-know-it" is a very far cry from "life-as-it-may-exist."
So, I’ll review once again.
Because of clear scientific evidence...
Which you do not provide sources for.
... Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist.
You do not, then, rule out the possibility of observers not similar to ourselves?
As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way.
There are approximately 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants. To quote wikipedia: "...many of the 26 constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons which seem to play little part in the universe or the structure of matter."
John Polkinghorne formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of a mere six dimensionless constants: N, Epsilon, Omega, Lambda, Q and D.
I apologise, I don't have enough time at the moment to give your post the response it deserves (actually, I do, but I am being polite), but I would ask you to take a look at this article.
Fred Adams of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor has shown via a computer simulation that even changing the gravitational constant and the fine structure constant by factors of 100, stars will still form. Given that one of your examples was g, it suggest that in at least one case your unsubstantiated assersions were false.
That may not necessarily be life as we know it, however. Since the simulations didn't rely on the stars producing carbon, Adams points out that very different life forms to ours might be better suited to some of the universes. Because life depends on chemistry, and chemistry depends on alpha, varying alpha changes the nature of life. "You have no idea what life would be like in a universe with different constants," Adams says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900
Makarios, however mathematically improbable the universe's existence, and indeed our own existence may be - can you not see that atheists find the probability of a complex creator being responsible for the entire lot (let alone an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator that watches over us) to be even LESS probable?
I mean you think you sound cool applying all these truly astounding figures to your argument, but what do you think the odds of a god creating everything are?
You can't believe that something so unlikely has happened, you are utterly astounded, yet you find it easy to believe that a magic deity is responsible for it all. Do you not see the extreme irony here?
Flew is getting old and strange. And there are rumours that his latest book was entirely written by someone else.
Anthony Flew stated that he was a deist and also said that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."
Later, in an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005, Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument as a conclusive proof.
About your statistics - what P.F. said.
Managed to find a few moments.
I wanted to bring up the following analogy, which I've always found a convincing argument for agnostism.
...
Let us suppose you were asked to participate in a statistics study, and you agree. You go into an empty room, and after a while a man walks in and gives you 5 playing cards in no particular order. They make an excellent hand, but not the best: for example, the 4,5,6,7 and 8 of clubs. A straight flush.
The dealer asks you how you were given that hand: randomly picking cards off of the deck, or by going through and picking those specific cards out.
You ask how many other people were given hands. He can't tell you, but he tells you that anybody who who did not get a hand better than a cut-off hand was asked to leave without ever seeing their cards.
You ask what that cut-off hand was. He can't tell you.
You ask whether the deck was stacked. He can't tell you.
You ask how big the deck was. He can't tell you.
You ask whether there were any non-clubs, or any royals, in the deck. He can't tell you.
You ask whether there's anything he can tell you. He can't tell you.
Do you have enough information to come to a conclusion on this? Or are you, like me, agnostic on this issue?
Rabhimself - "you are utterly astounded,"
I'm utterly astounded that atheists are willing to contradict science and a priori reject ANYTHING that challenges their world-view. What happened to the whole, "I'll go where ever the evidence leads"? It's astounding to hear atheists say:
If it keeps God out of the picture, I'll say that there CAN be an infinite regress of cause
If it keeps God out of the picture I'll say that everything CAN come from nothing by natural causes.
If it keeps God out of the picture I'll say anything and everything I have to.
What I want from atheists is honesty. Is that too much to ask? Just like I wished women would have the honesty and courage to say, "Yes the child within me is a human being. However I'm going to kill this child because I simply cannot raise this child nor can I go through with the pregnancy." I could understand that. I could respect that. Fear makes us do all kinds of things. But to say that obvious human life is not human life is disturbingly pitiful.
In the same manner, I'd like atheists to be honest enough and courageous enough to say, Yes it looks like something supernatural created the universe and yes that scenario agrees with science. However I don't care if God exists. I want nothing to do with Him. I could understand that. I could even respect that. That would be such an encouraging breath of fresh air. But to pretend that meaningful evidence doesn't mean a thing is, to me, disturbingly pathetic.
Jill - "Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument as a conclusive proof."
I'm not saying fine tuning provides conclusive proof. I'm not saying that fine tuning or first cause or anything else provide anything more than beyond reasonable doubts for a Deistic God.
But to hear atheists say, on the one hand, "I'm an intelligent, rational, logical person," and then on the other hand say that something can come into existence without a cause is, I think, just profoundly sad.
And to listen to you folks ridicule work that the most intelligent women and men in the world consider to be important, just to protect a deeply held desire, well, that too is sad, profoundly sad. It would be one thing if science backed you up, but it doesn't. That, Raphimself is ironic.
I'm utterly astounded that atheists are willing to contradict science and a priori reject ANYTHING that challenges their world-view.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the term "a priori," as demonstrated by your misuse of it here. You appear to be conflating rejecting something without examination with rejecting something after examining it for flaws.
a priori: "Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study." with
If it keeps God out of the picture, I'll say that there CAN be an infinite regress of cause.
How is this a less possible solution than an eternal, intelligent being?
Semantics: I would replace "CAN" with "could possibly".
If it keeps God out of the picture I'll say that everything CAN come from nothing by natural causes.
This depends on your definition of "nothing."
Again, "CAN" should be "could possibly".
If it keeps God out of the picture I'll say anything and everything I have to.
This is false. There many some things I would not say, because it is not in my character.
What I want from atheists is honesty. Is that too much to ask?
You are getting this. You do not seem to recognise it.
But to hear atheists say, on the one hand, "I'm an intelligent, rational, logical person," and then on the other hand say that something can come into existence without a cause is, I think, just profoundly sad.
Thankfully, I am not defending this proposition. I find the other hypotheses to be more plausible than the nothing-to-singularity hypotheses.
And to listen to you folks ridicule work that the most intelligent women and men in the world consider to be important, just to protect a deeply held desire, well, that too is sad, profoundly sad.
I sincerely hope you are not refering to me, or any of those posting here. I have not done or seen any of them do this.
Honesty??
HONESTY??
You have absolutely zero empirical evidence to suggest that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being exists and is watching over us.
Likewise, you have no proof that any of the stories in the bible are true or that they ever happened.
Yet you are the one that bashes on about it, in full belief. You and so many others are committing , in many peoples views, intellectual treachery. You have no appropriate, SCIENTIFIC, evidence to support your claims, yet you believe it.
If i told you i was the second coming of jesus, and right now i'm testing you, you would NOT believe that without evidence. So why do you believe what you believe.
Another thing thats bugging me here MAk, is that you seem to think the esxistence of everything is a great argument for god. Listen, nobody knows what there was before the big bang. So someone could argue that a creator causing it is just as plausible as natural causes. I personally find that unlikley. Here's the problem though makarios. Let's just say that a creator is responsible - it doesn't then automatically make them the christian god, surely you must realise this?
Finally, you are NOT a scientist. If you were a real scientist, you would not believe things without solid, empirical, testable evidence. You would also accept studies (such as tests on the power of prayer) as evidence on how probable the existence of god is.
Likt it or not, most scientists do not believe in fairytales (including your bible). If you'd only provide us with some real, non-philosophical, non-metaphysical evidence then perhaps you'd turn a few heads.
But makarios, understand that to all atheists, it is YOU who is the dishonest one, favouring supernaturalism and make-believe in favour of analysis of evidence.
Also, before you try to claim yet again that our existence is evidence, i notice you are missing out a piece of information regarding the existence of life. I do not know the exact figures, but i know calculations have been done that suggets that there could be a great number of planets with some sort of life on them right now. Yes, the chances are small, but given the extreme size of our universe, it isn't so mind-boggling to accept. I've heard that there are more GALAXIES in our universe, than there are grains of SAND on every beach on our planet.
Quasar - Besides Nietzsche and Camus, you are perhaps the closest I’ve come to an honest atheist. Or am I wrong? Did you say earlier you were an agnostic? Doesn’t matter. I appreciate your honest thoughts.
Rhapsody - dearest Rhapsody -
“Likewise, you have no proof that any of the stories in the bible are true or that they ever happened.”
Whoa! Back that up my friend. Nothing that I’ve talked about, so far as I’m aware has anything to do with the Bible. We can go down that road if you want but it should be regarding a different post than this. And perhaps you'd allow me to go to the crapper first, just to give me time to change my line of thinking.
==========
“So why do you believe what you believe.”
I happen to believe that there is enough evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, so much that the only thing that could keep a person from believing in it is a world-view that rules out the miraculous / supernatural.
And to be honest, the only thing that allows one to believe in the resurrection is a world-view that allows for the miraculous / supernatural. It comes down to open minded (that's me) versus narrow and closed minded (that's you) :-)
============
“Let's just say that a creator is responsible - it doesn't then automatically make them the christian god, surely you must realise this?”
Oh yes! I know. I think that I’ve said that several times, perhaps even to you. Surely though you would have remember such a momentous event as that.
=============
“Finally, you are NOT a scientist.”
I’m not? Ah, Rhapsody, you make me smile. Thank you. One cannot smile too often in a day.
==========
"If you were a real scientist, you would not believe things without solid, empirical, testable evidence.”
Yes, like infinite regress of cause and eternal matter and self-created matter and on and on and on.
==============
“You would also accept studies (such as tests on the power of prayer) as evidence on how probable the existence of god is.”
I would say that testing about prayer (silly thing to do) would say more about prayer itself than about the existence of God - at least as I know Him.
============
“If you'd only provide us with some real, non-philosophical, non-metaphysical evidence then perhaps you'd turn a few heads.”
Us? US? Are you a scientist Rhapsody? Am I talking to a real scientist? Wait! Let me go tell my wife. This is awesome. I'm in the presence of a - SCIENTIST :-0
=========
“But makarios, understand that to all atheists, it is YOU who is the dishonest one, favouring supernaturalism and make-believe in favour of analysis of evidence.”
Of course I’m not nearly as intelligent as you. After all you’re a scientist. However I think that I’ve spent enough time, a decade actually, searching and searching and asking and reading and - yes - thinking - little thoughts of course because I’m a little man with a tiny brain, but I was thinking.
===============
“but i know calculations have been done that suggets that there could be a great number of planets with some sort of life on them right now.”
Ah well, let me help you out there. Richard Dawkings pegs the number at one billion. That’s right. The man who is “leery of strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence,” as are you if I interpret your words correctly, tells us that even as we speak there are “at least” one billion planets with life evolving on them right this very minute.
=============
“I've heard that there are more GALAXIES in our universe, than there are grains of SAND on every beach on our planet.?"
Listen to this would ya! Is it now the atheists who are singing the praises of lots and lots of zeros? Again, another smile. Thank you laddy.
Makarios
You are by far the most unpleasant christian i have ever tried to talk to on a blog.
You are incredibly condescending, you take humour out of referring to me as Rhapsody, you make it out like i have said things about you which i certainly haven't, you litter your posts with excessive unnecessary sarcasm and you assert superiority over everyone who opposes you by trying to belittle their statements.
As it happens, i am a scientist, but i did not tell you this - nor did i infer that it makes you stupid compared to me. I never said you were a little man, with a little brain, with little thoughts.
I never poked fun at you for including lots of zeros in your arguments/ I understand your point of view, you think the vast statistical odds againt our existence point towards the existence of god. I was merely pointing out that the scale of our universe makes the occurence of such improbabilities a bit more acceptable when i told you about the grains of sand. Why you take the piss, i don't know.
If it makes you feel better by fabricating such nonsense then go for it. I think i will follow Stanley's lead and give up even trying to talk to you.
"And to be honest, the only thing that allows one to believe in the resurrection is a world-view that allows for the miraculous / supernatural. It comes down to open minded (that's me) versus narrow and closed minded (that's you) :-)"
Something for you to consider before smugly branding yourself more open-minded/superior in some respect and going nutty with emoticons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Post a Comment