Does God Exist?

[Guest]

...loading shoutbox...

[Cassandra]

Teleological Argument ? Argument for Design
The Teleological Argument comes down to design. The appearance that the universe was designed to support life on earth is overwhelming. Secular scientists have observed that for physical life to be possible in the universe, many characteristics must take on specific values, as referenced below. In the secular scientific world, this circumstance of apparent fine-tuning in the universe is not disputed, and is referred to as ?The Anthropic Principle.? Atheistic scientists have offered several unconvincing rationalizations for this having occurred without the involvement of a Divine Mind, but given the intricacy of the interrelationships between various features in the universe, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

Teleological Argument ? A Fine-Tuned Universe
The list supporting the Teleological Argument seems to be growing larger and larger as scientists discover more about the universe. Even now, this is a very long list, and who really likes lists? However, when I discuss these issues with atheists, they often ask for ?details on this so-called fine-tuning,? so here?s the list:

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field1

Teleological Argument ? Mathematical Impossibility without a Designer
The Teleological Argument reflects one of three possibilities for the existence of this incredible fine-tuning: law, chance or design. Scientists have puzzled over it for years and have found no natural laws that can account for it. The odds against such a theory ever being discovered seem insurmountable. Even Stephen Hawking, who was originally a believer in a ?Theory of Everything? that could possibly explain the fine-tuning as necessary by law, after considering G?del's Theorem concluded that one was not obtainable. He states: ?Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.?2

Since the threshold of mathematical impossibility is 1 in 10 to the 50th power, and the odds of this fine-tuning coming into existence by chance are far, far beyond that, we can rule out chance. Only a transcendent Creator makes sense of this unbelievably complex order in the universe.

During the last 35 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life absolutely depends upon this very delicate and complex balance of initial conditions. It appears that ?the deck was stacked? in the substances, constants and quantities of the Big Bang itself, to provide a life-permitting universe. We now know through modern science that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

Well, the answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimally small as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction.3 Physicist P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes!4 Davies also calculates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by merely one part in 10 raised to the 100th power (!) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.5 As we saw in the previous lists, there are dozens and dozens of such constants and quantities present in the Big Bang which must be exquisitely fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. Moreover, it's not only each individual quantity or constant which must be finely tuned; their ratios to each other must also be exquisitely finely tuned. Therefore, vast improbability is multiplied by vast improbability, and yet again by vast improbability repeatedly until our minds are simply reeling in vanishingly small odds.

There is no plausible physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values that they do. Reflecting on this, the once-agnostic physicist P.C.W. Davies comments, "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact."6 Likewise, British Astrophysicist Sir Frederick Hoyle remarks, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics."7 Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, refers to this as ?the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science.?8

Teleological Argument ? What?s More Reasonable, Design or Chance?
In the final analysis, it seems the Teleological Argument has strong scientific, philosophical, and theological legs. The view that Christian theists have historically held, that there is an intelligent Designer of the universe, seems to make so much more sense than the atheistic alternative: The universe, when it popped into being, without cause, out of nothing, just happened to be, by chance, fine-tuned for intelligent life with a mind-numbingly unlikely precision and delicacy. To call the odds against this fine-tuning occurring by chance ?astronomical? would be a wild understatement.

Learn More!

NOTES
Compliments of Steve J. Williams. Rendered with permission from the book, The Skeptics? Guide to Eternal Bliss (2nd ed), Steve J. Williams, Lulu Press, 2009. All rights reserved in the original.

1Most of the source references for ?The List? are found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248. Additional references are listed in the Related Article accompanying this piece to the right side.

2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything.

3 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 123.

4 P.C.W. Davies, Other Worlds (London: Dent, 1980), pp. 168, 169.

5 P.C. W. Davies, ?The Anthropic Principle?, in Particle and Nuclear Physics

6 Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1992), p. 169.

7 Fred Hoyle, ?The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,? Engineering and Science (November, 1981), p. 12.

8 Robert Jastrow, ?The Astronomer and God?, in The Intellectuals Speak Out About God, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regenery Gateway, 1984) p. 22.

[MiddeM]

Dear, if you want anyone to pay attention at your posts, they must be in a logical size. If you enjoy making articles it is fine but not all people are willing to read the whole thing you wrote and simply you will be ignored with that way..

[Lark]

If you're going to cut and paste from another site it would be a good idea to cite the source of your information.  Also, rather than cutting and pasting a long article you might want to post a short introduction and then a link to the original site.

-Lark-
Forum Moderator

[Victor]

true but I'll start doing it too!

[Saveyna Moonshadow]

If I may point out a little error... weak nuclear forces have been unified with electromagnetism in electroweak force, conveyed by -w, w and z bosons. They are no longer considered seperate entities.
Also that article convinces me of nothing, certainly not the existence of God. Steven Hawking has unfortunately clearly not heard the news that proof of string theory, a complete unification, will be obtainable in the next few years via the manifestation of multiple dimensions in particle colliders. Of course, it isn't certain, but seems likely.
I have studied string theory in part; it is a beautifully elegant solution. The only problem is M-theory, a quantum mechanical theory with eleven dimensional supergravity as its lower energy limit. I thought proof would come through supersymmetry, but there we go.

[Cassandra]

Well, I suppose I posted the entire article because understanding does require extensive reading. There is a bibliolography at the bottom where the sources are. Here is a link to another if that helps. I simply assumed that NO ONE clicked on links.
I have actually read one or two of these books.
https://http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

[Saveyna Moonshadow]

Well, they aren't scientifically very up to date! Electroweak has been around for ages!

[rob]

If you're going to cut and paste from another site it would be a good idea to cite the source of your information.  Also, rather than cutting and pasting a long article you might want to post a short introduction and then a link to the original site.

-Lark-
Forum Moderator

It's okay to post the entire article in most cases.  Most people won't bother to follow a link these days, it makes it easier.  But a link at the end helps the original author.

[Thrystal Encantatore]

Yes. Posting something as if it's yours even though it's not is plagiarism.

[Cassandra]

You said
" I may point out a little error... weak nuclear forces have been unified with electromagnetism in electroweak force, conveyed by -w, w and z bosons. They are no longer considered seperate entities.
Also that article convinces me of nothing, certainly not the existence of God. Steven Hawking has unfortunately clearly not heard the news that proof of string theory, a complete unification, will be obtainable in the next few years via the manifestation of multiple dimensions in particle colliders. Of course, it isn't certain, but seems likely.
I have studied string theory in part; it is a beautifully elegant solution. The only problem is M-theory, a quantum mechanical theory with eleven dimensional supergravity as its lower energy limit. I thought proof would come through supersymmetry, but there we go."

  Well, I admit I have not extensively studied string theory and I presume most people have not. I fail to see what "a complete unification theory" does for the argument about design but that' s up to you. I'm a simple person, like most people and when I notice that this entire planet is just bursting, for just one example, with plant life that just happens to contain compounds that treat cancer and thousands of other conditions I see mercy there and design. But, I'm just a simple person.

[Thrystal Encantatore]

What article? o.o

[mage master]

Well, I admit I have not extensively studied string theory and I presume most people have not. I fail to see what "a complete unification theory" does for the argument about design but that' s up to you. I'm a simple person, like most people and when I notice that this entire planet is just bursting, for just one example, with plant life that just happens to contain compounds that treat cancer and thousands of other conditions I see mercy there and design. But, I'm just a simple person.

yes there is a plant that exists, that can treet cancer...
*sighs*
i dont feel like getting into this fully so heres a short snipit of my thoughts on the above quote

to utilise the compounds and use them effectivly human intervention is still required... take something symple for example, metal ore needs smelted down before it can be used as metal. drugs, medicine etc all require human intervention at some point to be created into something of use.
ya may be able to see mercy in the design however the process can be complex forcing humans to learn how to utilise the properties of... well anything. normaly by them mercy is thrown out the window for many many years even generations before the compounds can be appropiately and effectivly harnesed by humans

[Cassandra]

yes there is a plant that exists, that can treet cancer...
*sighs*
i dont feel like getting into this fully so heres a short snipit of my thoughts on the above quote

to utilise the compounds and use them effectivly human intervention is still required... take something symple for example, metal ore needs smelted down before it can be used as metal. drugs, medicine etc all require human intervention at some point to be created into something of use.
ya may be able to see mercy in the design however the process can be complex forcing humans to learn how to utilise the properties of... well anything. normaly by them mercy is thrown out the window for many many years even generations before the compounds can be appropiately and effectivly harnesed by humans
[/quote]

  Well, I fail to see why that means that no one designed it. I still think I suppose simply. I ask my self "How did evolution put opium in the opium poppy before any intelligent humanoid life form existed to exploit it or cultivate it?" Why would blind evolution do that? It's a waste of the plant's energy. What purpose does taxol (breast cancer drug derived from the Pacific Yew tree) do for the plant? Nothing, that I can discern. Our planet is simply bursting with useful things like iron, gold, uranium, plants with useful drugs, plants that smell good, plants that take away pain. I see design in this and I am not going to change my mind.

[Gold Fingers]

Some doubt the existance of God because the evil in the world. But with out evil there is no good

[Thrystal Encantatore]

^ True.