-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Name me an atheist that asserted the universe had a beginning prior to the 20th century. Until the twentieth century, the Bible was the only text teaching all of the fundamentals of big bang cosmology (causal Agent beyond space and time, beginning of space and time, beginning of matter and energy, continuous cosmic expansion, constant laws of physics, matter and energy confined to the cosmic surface and continuous cosmic cooling, etc...).
Now you appear to be referring to string theory in which dark energy and dark matter together, in the observable universe, are mathematically estimated to comprise 68.3% and 26.8% respectively for a total of 95.1% leaving 4.9% left over as ordinary matter.
Understand that to make measurements precise enough to detect the cosmic string signature would take a square array of radio telescopes more than 100 kilometers on a side.
But if it can be accomplished at some point in the future, and the detection of cosmic strings successfully achieved, it will reveal to scientists the energy where gravity and quantum mechanics unify. This will further demonstrate the fine-tuning necessary for life in the fundamental laws of physics that govern our universe.
The particles themselves in string theory are a property of the vacuum. Inflationary bang models propose that dark energy (the self-stretching property of the cosmic space fabric) dominates exotic dark matter (particles that do not strongly interact with photons), which in turn dominates ordinary dark matter (aggregates of protons, neutrons, and electrons that do not emit appreciable light). To put it simply, particles themselves and dark energy are properties of the vacuum.
For us Christians it's interesting to note the very fine tuning which allows us to exist at all, such as the extremely precise level of cosmic dark energy density, as well as the many declarations in the bible that predate scientific discoveries such as the universe's constant physical laws and continual expansion.
Watch this for more information on the latter point: Reasons To Believe : Why is the universe expanding?
Hawkings and Krauss assert that the laws of physics are in operation before the "big bang" and therefore our universe is a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum that inflated as a result of the laws of physics.
The probability of this occurring within the extremely fine tuned parameters necessary for us to exist at all by chance is beyond the pale. For example, just the cosmic dark energy density that governs the degree to which the cosmic space surface stretches must be fine-tuned to at least one part in 10 to the 120th power exceeding the number of protons and neutrons in the observable universe by 100 billion quadrillion quadrillion times. Now factor in about a thousand other fine tuning parameters and deduce their probabilities then deduce the probability of them all occurring in one universe!
By saying the universe came from “nothing” Krauss is reflecting, unwittingly, one of Christianity’s foundational creeds. Creation ex nihilo (Latin for “creation from nothing”) refers to the moment God created something (the universe) from nothing (that which lacks matter, energy, space, and time). Hebrews 11:3 states, “The universe was framed by God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” “Seen” and “visible” refer to the stuff investigators can and do detect, namely space, time, matter, and energy.
Creator God created the laws of physics, the universe, nature, and humanity and sustains them.
Reasons To Believe : A Universe from Nothing? A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 1
Reasons To Believe : A Universe from Nothing? A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 2
Now you appear to be referring to string theory in which dark energy and dark matter together, in the observable universe, are mathematically estimated to comprise 68.3% and 26.8% respectively for a total of 95.1% leaving 4.9% left over as ordinary matter.
Understand that to make measurements precise enough to detect the cosmic string signature would take a square array of radio telescopes more than 100 kilometers on a side.
But if it can be accomplished at some point in the future, and the detection of cosmic strings successfully achieved, it will reveal to scientists the energy where gravity and quantum mechanics unify. This will further demonstrate the fine-tuning necessary for life in the fundamental laws of physics that govern our universe.
The particles themselves in string theory are a property of the vacuum. Inflationary bang models propose that dark energy (the self-stretching property of the cosmic space fabric) dominates exotic dark matter (particles that do not strongly interact with photons), which in turn dominates ordinary dark matter (aggregates of protons, neutrons, and electrons that do not emit appreciable light). To put it simply, particles themselves and dark energy are properties of the vacuum.
For us Christians it's interesting to note the very fine tuning which allows us to exist at all, such as the extremely precise level of cosmic dark energy density, as well as the many declarations in the bible that predate scientific discoveries such as the universe's constant physical laws and continual expansion.
Watch this for more information on the latter point: Reasons To Believe : Why is the universe expanding?
Hawkings and Krauss assert that the laws of physics are in operation before the "big bang" and therefore our universe is a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum that inflated as a result of the laws of physics.
The probability of this occurring within the extremely fine tuned parameters necessary for us to exist at all by chance is beyond the pale. For example, just the cosmic dark energy density that governs the degree to which the cosmic space surface stretches must be fine-tuned to at least one part in 10 to the 120th power exceeding the number of protons and neutrons in the observable universe by 100 billion quadrillion quadrillion times. Now factor in about a thousand other fine tuning parameters and deduce their probabilities then deduce the probability of them all occurring in one universe!
By saying the universe came from “nothing” Krauss is reflecting, unwittingly, one of Christianity’s foundational creeds. Creation ex nihilo (Latin for “creation from nothing”) refers to the moment God created something (the universe) from nothing (that which lacks matter, energy, space, and time). Hebrews 11:3 states, “The universe was framed by God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” “Seen” and “visible” refer to the stuff investigators can and do detect, namely space, time, matter, and energy.
Creator God created the laws of physics, the universe, nature, and humanity and sustains them.
Reasons To Believe : A Universe from Nothing? A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 1
Reasons To Believe : A Universe from Nothing? A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 2
A
He's not that smart and he displays a lot of negative volition toward the Christian worldview. In my opinion, he'd happily divert someone away from Creator God and Christianity into the error of atheism he willfully pursues (though he denies that he does even to himself).
So, on what basis are you basing this belief of yours that he's going to become a super preacher touring the world for the cause of Christ?
So, on what basis are you basing this belief of yours that he's going to become a super preacher touring the world for the cause of Christ?
B
So, on what basis do base this belief of yours that he's going to become a super preacher touring the world for the cause of Christ?
The poster means well, virtually saying that God will throw a "lightning bolt" at the unbeliever and he will make a terrific adjustment in God's name. We know what happen to Saul who later became Paul.
The poster means well, virtually saying that God will throw a "lightning bolt" at the unbeliever and he will make a terrific adjustment in God's name. We know what happen to Saul who later became Paul.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aside from your first sentence, “Name me an atheist that asserted the universe had a beginning prior to the 20th century,” is there any part of this post that you didn't cut and paste? Certainly the rest of your first paragraph is copied from the following creationist website, <http://www.dsgraves.com/faithwrit/the-big-bang-and-the-bible/>, and parts of the remainder seem to have been lifted from a 2009 article by Dr. Hugh Ross and the writings of Dr. Jeff Zweerink (though I didn't take the time to check the source of every sentence in your post).
It’s ironic you would remark I am “not that smart” but then proceed to put me up against Dr. Jeff Zweerink, from the UCLA Physics & Astronomy department. You do this because you acknowledge you don’t have the background to discus the subject yourself so you rely on words taken from others? We have had this discussion before, I think. Please put every word you borrow from others in quotations so I know who I am actually having the conversation with. It is a courtesy to the author of the ideas, and it dispels any erroneous pretense that the words are your own.
By the way, did you know that Zweerink thinks that the multi-universe hypothesis is credible? Obviously he knows more about this than I do, but from what I’ve read it sounds very plausible. What do you think? There is no way this guy is a young earth creationist. Given you constantly cite him I am guessing you do recognize the universe is some 13.72 billion years old? Hugh Ross too recognizes the great age of the universe; conservative Christians have been very critical of his views in this regard.
There is no single Christian world view. There is your world view and then the Christian world views of Pope Francis, the Archbishops of the Church of England, and so on. What you will find, if you look into it, is that my views don’t differ all that much from those of many liberal Christians.
AoK, I am an atheist. If you want to follow me into the light of reason I will be very happy to help show you the way, but I have no quarrel with those who choose instead to worship a personal deity. I won’t try to stop you. I don’t argue with the likes of Francis Collins, a self professed evangelical Christian and leading American geneticist who states clearly that he can prove the case for evolution using genetics. Many liberal Christians have demonstrated that it is possible to embrace modern scientific findings and still believe in God. Why would I argue with that?
My real interest is in correcting those who make false claims about science, history and atheists. I also am very interested in correcting any erroneous views that I hold and I am sure I have my fair share. The best way any of us have to test the strength of our position is to put them up against others who have different outlooks. Members of the scientific community do this all the time and they slowly work toward a consensus. Note that consensus is not compromise. Put to the test ideas either stand or they fall. It seems reasonable that in a fair exchange of ideas the truth settles out on top, and who among us would object to that?
It’s ironic you would remark I am “not that smart” but then proceed to put me up against Dr. Jeff Zweerink, from the UCLA Physics & Astronomy department. You do this because you acknowledge you don’t have the background to discus the subject yourself so you rely on words taken from others? We have had this discussion before, I think. Please put every word you borrow from others in quotations so I know who I am actually having the conversation with. It is a courtesy to the author of the ideas, and it dispels any erroneous pretense that the words are your own.
By the way, did you know that Zweerink thinks that the multi-universe hypothesis is credible? Obviously he knows more about this than I do, but from what I’ve read it sounds very plausible. What do you think? There is no way this guy is a young earth creationist. Given you constantly cite him I am guessing you do recognize the universe is some 13.72 billion years old? Hugh Ross too recognizes the great age of the universe; conservative Christians have been very critical of his views in this regard.
There is no single Christian world view. There is your world view and then the Christian world views of Pope Francis, the Archbishops of the Church of England, and so on. What you will find, if you look into it, is that my views don’t differ all that much from those of many liberal Christians.
AoK, I am an atheist. If you want to follow me into the light of reason I will be very happy to help show you the way, but I have no quarrel with those who choose instead to worship a personal deity. I won’t try to stop you. I don’t argue with the likes of Francis Collins, a self professed evangelical Christian and leading American geneticist who states clearly that he can prove the case for evolution using genetics. Many liberal Christians have demonstrated that it is possible to embrace modern scientific findings and still believe in God. Why would I argue with that?
My real interest is in correcting those who make false claims about science, history and atheists. I also am very interested in correcting any erroneous views that I hold and I am sure I have my fair share. The best way any of us have to test the strength of our position is to put them up against others who have different outlooks. Members of the scientific community do this all the time and they slowly work toward a consensus. Note that consensus is not compromise. Put to the test ideas either stand or they fall. It seems reasonable that in a fair exchange of ideas the truth settles out on top, and who among us would object to that?
A
Cycel, I didn't "put you up" against anyone simply because you're not qualified to go up against ANY of them. What I did is share some factual information with you on an interesting topic you commented on.
Of course I quote and paraphrase Christian qualified astrophysicists and physicists and share the links to and resources that I'm using. You can tell because I name them by name and insert links to their articles. DUH!
Yes I do like the team over at RTB as not only is Ross fully qualified to discuss these topics but RTB has an extended network of hundreds of thousands of scientists, researchers, educators, and interested laypersons. I also like the publications from the likes of Edgar Andrews, etc... and a great many others which I share too.
I don't remember accessing dsgraves for this thread; however. I don't need to as I have all of RTB's published materials, access to reasons.org, a plethora of scholarly science resources, etc... Perhaps the author of that website copied from them resulting in the overlap and your confusion. But then you should have asked me rather than play citation marm on an informal forum and engage in ad hominem to excuse yourself from dealing with the content to make a false assertion and divert the discussion away from the point of it.
And, if you've been reading what I post, then you know I deal with multiverse hypothesis. You appear to be under the illusion that multiverse hypothesis is leading away from Creator God rather than toward Him.
What Jeff says exactly (and I quote) is:
"I would argue that the “God or multiverse” choice is a false dichotomy. First, in past TNRTBs I have shown that the multiverse does not help the naturalist eliminate God. In fact, in a strictly naturalist worldview, the multiverse adversely affects the scientific enterprise. Second, I see no inherent problems with God using a multiverse to create a place where Earth life, especially humanity, could grow and thrive."
Of course Cycel, it is uncertain whether the multiverse will ultimately prove true. Read: Reasons To Believe : Multiverse
Furthermore, you're also wrong about there not being a Christian worldview. There certainly is too. In fact, there is only one correct Christian worldview and it is the right one that actually exists in perfect alignment with objective reality.
People and their consensus can align with or fail to align with it as they so choose to. Now would be a good time for you to revisit my post #206: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/97622-paranormal-11.html#post1665386
What you're observing is people that profess to be Christians (some who are and some who are not) making assertions. These assertions, each individually, either align with THE Christian worldview's objective reality or they do not align with it to whatever extend they do or fail to. This isn't difficult to understand. The mere presence of disagreement does not invalidate truth. Any good philosopher can easily explain why though many atheists appear unable to grasp the concept... lol.
Now the earliest-known Christian writings on the meaning of the creation days date back to the second century. Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100-165) and Irenaeus (c. A.D. 120-140 to 200-203) drew support from Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to suggest that the "days" could be epochs. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) wrote, in The City of God, "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think-let alone explain in words-what they mean."
In The Literal Meaning of Genesis he added, "But at least we know that it is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Augustine understood the evenings and mornings of the Genesis creation days in a figurative sense.
Eusebius noted that the Hebrew word for day, yom, could refer to an epoch time scale stating, "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, in the day that God made the heaven and the earth, and all the things that are therein."
There has been divergence on the age of the world amongst Christians throughout the history of Christendom whose special revelation from God is primarily concerned with His plan and purpose for the redemption and salvation of His creation.
Obviously, as an educated intelligent person possessing a experiential personal relationship with Creator God, I have zero desire to follow you into the error you have willfully chosen for yourself. Unlike you, I am not deceived and know WHOM I speak of when I speak of God.
Of course I quote and paraphrase Christian qualified astrophysicists and physicists and share the links to and resources that I'm using. You can tell because I name them by name and insert links to their articles. DUH!
Yes I do like the team over at RTB as not only is Ross fully qualified to discuss these topics but RTB has an extended network of hundreds of thousands of scientists, researchers, educators, and interested laypersons. I also like the publications from the likes of Edgar Andrews, etc... and a great many others which I share too.
I don't remember accessing dsgraves for this thread; however. I don't need to as I have all of RTB's published materials, access to reasons.org, a plethora of scholarly science resources, etc... Perhaps the author of that website copied from them resulting in the overlap and your confusion. But then you should have asked me rather than play citation marm on an informal forum and engage in ad hominem to excuse yourself from dealing with the content to make a false assertion and divert the discussion away from the point of it.
And, if you've been reading what I post, then you know I deal with multiverse hypothesis. You appear to be under the illusion that multiverse hypothesis is leading away from Creator God rather than toward Him.
What Jeff says exactly (and I quote) is:
"I would argue that the “God or multiverse” choice is a false dichotomy. First, in past TNRTBs I have shown that the multiverse does not help the naturalist eliminate God. In fact, in a strictly naturalist worldview, the multiverse adversely affects the scientific enterprise. Second, I see no inherent problems with God using a multiverse to create a place where Earth life, especially humanity, could grow and thrive."
Of course Cycel, it is uncertain whether the multiverse will ultimately prove true. Read: Reasons To Believe : Multiverse
Furthermore, you're also wrong about there not being a Christian worldview. There certainly is too. In fact, there is only one correct Christian worldview and it is the right one that actually exists in perfect alignment with objective reality.
People and their consensus can align with or fail to align with it as they so choose to. Now would be a good time for you to revisit my post #206: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/97622-paranormal-11.html#post1665386
What you're observing is people that profess to be Christians (some who are and some who are not) making assertions. These assertions, each individually, either align with THE Christian worldview's objective reality or they do not align with it to whatever extend they do or fail to. This isn't difficult to understand. The mere presence of disagreement does not invalidate truth. Any good philosopher can easily explain why though many atheists appear unable to grasp the concept... lol.
Now the earliest-known Christian writings on the meaning of the creation days date back to the second century. Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100-165) and Irenaeus (c. A.D. 120-140 to 200-203) drew support from Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to suggest that the "days" could be epochs. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) wrote, in The City of God, "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think-let alone explain in words-what they mean."
In The Literal Meaning of Genesis he added, "But at least we know that it is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Augustine understood the evenings and mornings of the Genesis creation days in a figurative sense.
Eusebius noted that the Hebrew word for day, yom, could refer to an epoch time scale stating, "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, in the day that God made the heaven and the earth, and all the things that are therein."
There has been divergence on the age of the world amongst Christians throughout the history of Christendom whose special revelation from God is primarily concerned with His plan and purpose for the redemption and salvation of His creation.
Obviously, as an educated intelligent person possessing a experiential personal relationship with Creator God, I have zero desire to follow you into the error you have willfully chosen for yourself. Unlike you, I am not deceived and know WHOM I speak of when I speak of God.
You have misunderstood. Look again at what I wrote. I think you must be preprogrammed to disagree with everything I say. 
That’s almost funny. If this was true you shouldn’t have too much trouble convincing nearly everyone you meet.
I’ve hauled out my National Geographic Atlas of the World (7th Edition, p. 13) and it shows the United States divided into Protestant, Catholic, and Other Christian, but nothing is marked True Christian, unless the map doesn’t have the resolution to show your location.
Could it be that ‘religious truth’ exists only in the eyes of the believer? Let me ask you which is the true version of Islam: Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Quranism, Mahdavia, or the version of Sunni extremism that is rocketing across the Middle East right now? If true religion is defined by those who are rigid enough in their beliefs to think they alone are righteous in God’s eyes and everyone else is going straight to hell, then I think we have our answer.
That’s almost funny. If this was true you shouldn’t have too much trouble convincing nearly everyone you meet.
I’ve hauled out my National Geographic Atlas of the World (7th Edition, p. 13) and it shows the United States divided into Protestant, Catholic, and Other Christian, but nothing is marked True Christian, unless the map doesn’t have the resolution to show your location.
Could it be that ‘religious truth’ exists only in the eyes of the believer? Let me ask you which is the true version of Islam: Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Quranism, Mahdavia, or the version of Sunni extremism that is rocketing across the Middle East right now? If true religion is defined by those who are rigid enough in their beliefs to think they alone are righteous in God’s eyes and everyone else is going straight to hell, then I think we have our answer.
I have no issue with who you quote, AoK, only with your neglect of standard referencing practices. I went back and looked at the post in question and you didn’t put a single quotation mark around any of the passages you pulled from other authors. This leaves the reader with the false impression that the words are your own. I am sure those other writers don’t mind you quoting them, but I’d wager they want to be properly recognized.
Every time you reference another author’s words you need to be clear in who you are quoting and which passages are theirs and which are your own. We all need to be careful with this.
Every time you reference another author’s words you need to be clear in who you are quoting and which passages are theirs and which are your own. We all need to be careful with this.
Fine-tuning in physics is remarkable but not easily understood by the some.
There is a simpler science that teaches about remakarkable interdependencies in nature. It is called ecology.
Ecology is the scientific study of interactions among organisms and their environment, such as the interactions organisms have with each other and with their abiotic environment. Ecology teaches interdependencies among plant, animal and inorganic components of an ecosystem that go way beyond what the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation could ever accomplish while working within one gender and one generation at a time of an individual species.
There is a simpler science that teaches about remakarkable interdependencies in nature. It is called ecology.
Ecology is the scientific study of interactions among organisms and their environment, such as the interactions organisms have with each other and with their abiotic environment. Ecology teaches interdependencies among plant, animal and inorganic components of an ecosystem that go way beyond what the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation could ever accomplish while working within one gender and one generation at a time of an individual species.
The Greco-Egyptian astronomer, Ptolemy, dominated astronomic science for century with his geocentric worldview of celestial bodies revolving around the earth. Ptolemy's worldview included elements of astrology. Like the rest of us, Greeks didn't have all wisdom and understanding.
Thank you for the introduction to the Grecian Democritus. He was quite the traveler and thinker. I read through much of this: Democritus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Thank you for teaching.
Thank you for the introduction to the Grecian Democritus. He was quite the traveler and thinker. I read through much of this: Democritus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Thank you for teaching.
Who would be doing whom a favor by reaching out? God would be doing you a favor by reaching out supernaturally to you. You would be doing right by continuing to seek after him. Sin causes a separation in relationship and none of us are fully innocent concerning either sins of commission or sins of omission. All of us easily omit full thankfulness for earth and air and water and blessings that we don't even recognize. Almighty God could be merciless but instead is patient and long-suffering not willing any to be destroyed but all to come to repentance. IMHO, fear and reverence toward God would be appropriate steps.
...[God] does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent. (2 Peter 3:9|NLT).
Jesus: Repent and believe.
Repent and believe are the same humble steps for everyone.
"Pride is the first sin that ever entered into the universe, and the last sin that is rooted out." Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
...[God] does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent. (2 Peter 3:9|NLT).
Jesus: Repent and believe.
Repent and believe are the same humble steps for everyone.
"Pride is the first sin that ever entered into the universe, and the last sin that is rooted out." Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
I looked up world view on Wikipedia to learn what it thought a world view encompassed. I found the following:
“A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view.”
Sound reasonable? I think so. We started on this enquiry with your claim that absence of belief in life after death constituted a religion. I argued that religion encompassed far more than a single notion and suggested that calling this absence of belief in an afterlife, a religion, trivialized the meaning of religion. I think also that calling it a world view is pushing things. Perhaps you're a minimalist? If so you might appreciate Bertrand Russell's definition of Christianity:
“... you must believe in God and immortality... [and] I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian” (Russell, Why I am Not a Christian, pp 12-13, first published 1957).
That probably doesn’t work for you.
In accepting Wikipedia’ definition of world view I would accept that the absence of belief in life after death is a very tiny part of the totality of my world view, but in and of itself it is neither a world view nor a religion.
“A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view.”
Sound reasonable? I think so. We started on this enquiry with your claim that absence of belief in life after death constituted a religion. I argued that religion encompassed far more than a single notion and suggested that calling this absence of belief in an afterlife, a religion, trivialized the meaning of religion. I think also that calling it a world view is pushing things. Perhaps you're a minimalist? If so you might appreciate Bertrand Russell's definition of Christianity:
“... you must believe in God and immortality... [and] I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian” (Russell, Why I am Not a Christian, pp 12-13, first published 1957).
That probably doesn’t work for you.
In accepting Wikipedia’ definition of world view I would accept that the absence of belief in life after death is a very tiny part of the totality of my world view, but in and of itself it is neither a world view nor a religion.
The fine tuning of the laws of physics might be difficult to grasp in its particulars but is easy to understand in the broad sweep of things.
Christians often argue that the laws of physics were tuned, by God, with human life in mind. This is a species centric viewpoint that states everything has occurred just for us. Those same Christians often argue that earth is the only planet with life. Despite there being billions of galaxies the conservative religious view states that stars, planets and life itself can only originate if purposely created by God. Of course there is no real evidence this is true. I don’t think we can count the Bible as a scientific text that has anything truly useful to say about the origin of the universe or of life.
What can a total novice then say about the fine tuning of the universe in the absence of God? Not very much except to suggest there seem to be two possibilities: i) the physical laws of the universe are as they are because they can be no other way; or ii) the rules are set by chance. Physicists seem to believe that there are any number of ways the laws might have been tuned. If so then was the tuning of this universe a lucky break? Well, yes and no. If we postulate the existence of any number of universes in the past, or others existing outside of our own, then there is the potential for many times to throw the dice. Sooner or later life will catch its lucky break. We don’t need to postulate the existence of God to get a universe with life.
This is not evidence against a deity, it is only a thought experiment pointing that it might be possible to have this universe even in the absence of a fine tuner. You can argue God fine tuned the laws of our universe, but I don't think this can be proven.
Christians often argue that the laws of physics were tuned, by God, with human life in mind. This is a species centric viewpoint that states everything has occurred just for us. Those same Christians often argue that earth is the only planet with life. Despite there being billions of galaxies the conservative religious view states that stars, planets and life itself can only originate if purposely created by God. Of course there is no real evidence this is true. I don’t think we can count the Bible as a scientific text that has anything truly useful to say about the origin of the universe or of life.
What can a total novice then say about the fine tuning of the universe in the absence of God? Not very much except to suggest there seem to be two possibilities: i) the physical laws of the universe are as they are because they can be no other way; or ii) the rules are set by chance. Physicists seem to believe that there are any number of ways the laws might have been tuned. If so then was the tuning of this universe a lucky break? Well, yes and no. If we postulate the existence of any number of universes in the past, or others existing outside of our own, then there is the potential for many times to throw the dice. Sooner or later life will catch its lucky break. We don’t need to postulate the existence of God to get a universe with life.
This is not evidence against a deity, it is only a thought experiment pointing that it might be possible to have this universe even in the absence of a fine tuner. You can argue God fine tuned the laws of our universe, but I don't think this can be proven.
Last edited:
No Christian ever hit upon the notion of a multiverse based upon their reading of the Bible. It required scientific thinking to originate the hypothesis. That the physicist Jeff Zweerink gives credence to the possibility, and is himself a Christian, is evidence enough for me that like evolution the multiverse hypothesis is also compatible with Christian thinking – so long as one is not a biblical literalist.