A couple posts ago I stated, “Scientists tell us that the universe is flat. Do you know what that means?
Do you know what it would take to change it to something other than flat?”
. One atheist said that he asked his physics prof, but apparently he’s decided against sharing what he learned. He's letting me do this first.
. Another left the comment-
These lines represent the flatness?”
Well, ok. I can use that concept. However, before returning to that, another way of looking at the issue is, at Big Bang the universe inflated to enormous dimensions literally in the twinkling of an eye. Just as the earth “appears” flat to someone with a very limited perspective from where we stand, so too the universe. However, the flat universe issue is describing, I think, much more than perception.
Unless I’m wrong, a flat universe is describing the room or lack thereof for variance in order for our universe, our life supporting universe to exist. The variance is determined in large part by the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
As suggested above, this can be represented by = = = = = = = = = =
Any variation in either direction (eg, 800 parts vs. 1 part, 50 parts vs. 1 part, 2 parts vs. 1 part, or even 1.00001 parts) more than 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
and there would be - no universe. I don’t mean, no universe NOW. I mean if this exact constant had not been put in place at Planck time, the universe would not have EVER existed.
A DECREASE in the rate of expansion less than = = = = = = = = = = and the universe would have re collapsed.
An INCREASE more than = = = = = = = = = = and no galaxies would have been able to form.
At 10 ^ -43 second after the Big Bang, the density of the universe must have been within = = = = = = = = = = of the critical density at which space is flat.
Roger Penrose has calculated that having this exquisite fine tuning taking place by accident, without any “constraining principle” being put in AT Planck Time to be 10 ^ 1,230. “The Road to Reality” 762-765.
What I’m talking about has nothing to do with the Law of Large Numbers. This has to do with exquisitely unimaginably finely tuned constants and qualities.
Even though the number of sub atomic particles in the whole universe is 10 ^ 80
Even though “impossible” is calculated to be 10 ^ 50 or greater
Even though Penrose says the possibility of our being here by accident to be 10 ^ 1,230
Atheists say this all happened by chance.
No logic? No problem. Atheists just say whatever needs to be said in order to preserve their delusion. And if you dare challenge their delusion, well then, you’re anti intellectual, anti science, anti progress.
It’s not easy for someone to live with such a cognitive disconnect whereby on the one hand the atheist says, I’m intelligent, reasonable, and logical, yet on the other hand say “One hundred finely tuned constants and qualities came together, as they are today, all at once in Planck time - and it was just luck.
In fact, it’s such a disconnect that a growing percentage of atheists have reasonably decided that someone is going to find out that the Chance hypothesis is just plain ridiculous. They’re right.
Sadly, preferring to sound like the village idiot rather than admit to anything that smacks of Design, atheists invented an origin of the universe mythology that says there are - wait for it - an INFINITE NUMBER of universes. Isn’t that just like something a Bright would say? With an infinite number of chances to give chance a chance of working, atheists tell us that it just stands to “reason” that somewhere within an infinite number of universes, there would be one universe where all the constants required for a life-supporting universe were put into place at Planck time by . . . . . . . . ta da! - Chance.
If you don’t mind believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, this multi verse mythology sounds like a really good idea.
It’s not a good idea.
In fact it’s a terrible idea. While the multi verse mythology is a compliment to the veracity of the Design hypothesis, it makes worse the very problem that atheists were hoping to make go away.
First of all, there is no such thing and in fact there cannot be such a thing as a material infinite - of anything. What’s more, if there WERE an infinite number of universes (life supporting or not) each and every one of them would need similar constants to get started AND to remain in existence, as is the case with ours. Positing an infinite number of universes doesn’t eliminate the problem. Rather than making the atheist’s problem go away, atheists have just INCREASED their problems by an infinite degree.
A multi verse mythology doesn’t multiply the chances of our life-supporting universe existing. An absurd multi verse mythology multiplies the absurdities of atheism.
As atheists are discovering, Extreme evidence like a finely tuned life-supporting universe requires extremely absurd mythologies to explain it away.
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
Astronomer Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections” 12