Science Vs. Atheism (ritual, Creator, Darwin, Moses, Deist)

[Orthodox]

Hello,

The purpose of this posting is to demonstrate the unscientific nature of atheistic belief. Although I am a Christian I am not primarily attempting in this thread to demonstrate how Christianity is true, I am merely (and I use that word with caution) trying to show how the observation of various empirical facts has in recent years destroyed the scientific base of atheism. I hope to show that the discovery of these facts has changed atheism from a worldview based on fact to one bereft of factual foundation.

About one hundred years ago scientists began to unravel a number of cosmological coincidences, named ‘cosmological constants’. These ‘constants’ were named so because it was immediately apparent that while they were all independent of each other, each one is absolutely necessary for life. Martin Rees, a colleague of Stephen Hawking’s at Cambridge, noted, “The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit some remarkable coincidences.” The effect of these ‘constants’, coupled with the onset of comprehensive physical theories about the universe, has been the death knell of sophisticated scientific atheism.

The physical theory with the most import to this discussion is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. GR demonstrated that the universe must have had a beginning. Initially, when he developed GR, Einstein incorporated an artificial “fudge factor” into his equation to negate this overt demand for a beginning of the universe. He later called this “the greatest single mistake of [his] career”. So, GR dictates that the universe must have some independent cause, some Prime Mover - for we know that nothing can be causa sui (self-caused – don’t confuse this with something being uncaused). This is the unavoidable conclusion we must draw if we are to accept GR, the most comprehensive and empirically demonstrable physical theory of our day. For this reason very few physical scientists are atheists.

So what does all this mean? It means that to the best of our scientific knowledge the universe was begun by something other than itself in an enormous, and finely tuned, Big Bang. The ‘constants’ at play in the universe are each highly unlikely and highly specific. Together they form what is known as the Anthropic Principle. Below I list a number of these ‘constants’ without which life would be impossible.

1. The gravitational coupling constant. If slightly unbalanced, each star formed would be at least 1.4 times the size of the Sun. Such large stars are required to form heavier elements such as iron and beryllium (used in solar system formation) but, a large star burns too quickly and unevenly to sustain life. A star the size of our own is needed to make those conditions right.

If the force were just a little weaker then stars would be too small and would never form the heavier elements essential for life and planetary systems.
2. If the strong nuclear force coupling constant that binds particles in the nucleus together were slightly weaker then more than one proton would not hold together in the nucleus and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.

If stronger then Hydrogen would be too rare in the universe and also a number of very heavy elements would not be present in large enough quantities to support life.
3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant and leptons. Leptons form the elementary particles like neutrinos, electrons and photons that have no place in strong nuclear reactions. A weak nuclear force interaction effect is beta decay radiation. ( neutron  proton + electron + neutrino)

The amount of Helium produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang is determined by the availability of Neutrons. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger then there would be fewer neutrons, as they would decay more rapidly. Without adequate amounts of helium none of the heavy elements necessary for life would form in the nuclear reactions of stars. If the force were smaller there would be so great an abundance of heavy elements that life would not form either.

Additionally, if the force were larger or smaller then neutrinos could not “blow” the heavy elements located at the core of a supernova out into the solar system. Once again, this would inhibit the development of life.

4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms, if smaller electrons would not be held in orbit around the nuclei of atoms, if larger electrons could not be shared between other atoms. Either way, any type of molecule would be impossible. Try to imagine life without molecules.
5. The ratio between the masses of an electron and proton is 1:1836. If slightly different molecules, again, would not form.
6. If the expansion rate of the universe were slightly less by one part in a million million then the whole universe would have collapsed back onto itself just after the Big Bang. If larger by one part in a million stars would not have formed.
7. If the centrifugal force did not perfectly balance the force of gravity then solar systems and galaxies would not form.
8. If the resonance level of the Carbon 12 nucleus were slightly lower carbon would not form. Slightly higher level would instantly destroy it. Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and the other heavy elements required for life need this.
9. If the entropy level of the universe was slightly larger or smaller then stars would not form.
10. The mass of the universe (mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines the nuclear burning after the big bang. If slightly more massive, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms containing both a proton and a neutron in the nucleus) would form after the big bang. Deuterium is the catalyst for the ignition of stars. Extra deuterium would cause stars to burn too rapidly to sustain life on any planet. If the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, helium would not be generated at all during the aftermath of the big bang. As in number 3, without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Here is the reason for why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), no life would be possible.

Here are just eleven out of many such cosmic ‘coincidences’. There are no natural laws that require the universe to be this way, apparently it is just a freak occurrence. The chances involved for just one of these constants to occur is astronomical. Take, for example, the smoothness of the universe. If it were more smooth then stars and galaxies (and subsequently life) would not have formed, if less smooth then only super massive black holes would have formed (no life there either). Roger Penrose, the famous scientist who developed the Singularity Theorem with Stephen Hawking, calculated the chances of the smoothness of the universe being that needed to sustain life as 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Just to give you a little insight into this number; it is a bigger number than the number of particles in the universe (by particles I don’t just mean atoms, or even protons, I mean quarks!).

Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astrophysicist, was forced to concede that “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this question almost beyond question.”

Stephen Hawking, a staunch anti-atheist, said, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel prize recipient said, “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

[Orthodox]

[add on to above - post too long]

What can a sceptic say to this? Well, they could say something like, “If there are an infinite number universes (presumably through some bouncing universe, big bang/big crunch model) then eventually there will arise a universe that can support life.” However, Alan Guth, the first to postulate the idea of an “inflationary big bang”, has put this idea to death. He proved, in his 1983 article in Nature entitled “The impossibility of a Bouncing Universe”, that even if the universe had adequate mass to stop its expansion, a big crunch would only create a ‘thud’ not a ‘bounce’. There is now a consensus among most physicists and cosmologists that short of intervention by a God the universe will continue to expand forever.

A sceptic may also say that life is not necessarily contingent upon carbon and therefore life could arise in another type of universe that does not support carbon. This again is an unscientific presumption, Polkinghorne responded to this idea by saying:
“Those who make such a claim are drawing a very large intellectual blank check on a totally unknown bank account. Consciousness seems to demand very great physical complexity to sustain it (the human brain is the most complicated physical system we have created). It is far from persuasive that there are many alternative routes to this generation of complexity.”

Let us also consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. The second law, dealing with entropy, states that the amount of useable energy in the universe is decreasing. An example of this law is found in the burning of wood. When I burn a log of wood it turns from a highly ordered and useable lump of energy to a disordered and unusable piece, ash, smoke, heat and light. We can’t burn the ash, smoke, heat and light again and only a small quantity of them will be re-ordered into useable energy. This law is working on the large scale as well. The universe is slowly winding itself down so that eventually it will be at a constant temperature (slightly higher than absolute Zero) and will have no useable energy left.

The universe, it seems, will eventually run out of steam and be dark and desolate. There will be no light, all the stars would all have died. There would be practically no heat; even electrons will hardly move. The universe will be dead. It is apparent, scientifically, that this universe we inhabit was started by something bigger and more powerful than itself, it has had this one shot at vitality before it dies.

What now, are the odds of there being no God? Science and reason have sided with religion, aren’t they the atheist’s patrons?

On the thread entitled “What kind of atheist are you?” someone had written,

From a scientific perspective... There is good evidence against the existence of any god(s)

I don’t think there are many prominent contemporary scientists who would say this. Is this a statement of faith? If not, I hope that person would be so kind as to enlighten me!

[Green Gaia]

None of the above - I consider myself mostly Deist.

Moving to Science vs Religion Forum....

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- Great post!

Let us also consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. The second law, dealing with entropy, states that the amount of useable energy in the universe is decreasing. An example of this law is found in the burning of wood. When I burn a log of wood it turns from a highly ordered and useable lump of energy to a disordered and unusable piece, ash, smoke, heat and light. We can’t burn the ash, smoke, heat and light again and only a small quantity of them will be re-ordered into useable energy. This law is working on the large scale as well. The universe is slowly winding itself down so that eventually it will be at a constant temperature (slightly higher than absolute Zero) and will have no useable energy left.

The universe, it seems, will eventually run out of steam and be dark and desolate. There will be no light, all the stars would all have died. There would be practically no heat; even electrons will hardly move. The universe will be dead. It is apparent, scientifically, that this universe we inhabit was started by something bigger and more powerful than itself, it has had this one shot at vitality before it dies.

The last sentence does not logically follow the ones before it. Scientifically, time is finite in the cosmos that we inhabit, and one day it will "die". Saying that, therefore, it must have been started by something bigger and more powerful than itself is conjecture.

You say that if one of many mathematical constants in physics were different, life would not be possible. I agree. Next, you say that, therefore, something greater than the universe itself must have fine tuned those constants in order to create life....but this does not logically follow. If the universe were different, it would be different...no surprise there.

Let's talk hypothetical for a moment and say that none of the constants in physics are set right now. Now we pick some constants, and we get a universe made completely out of hydrogen. What were the odds of all the constants being exactly what they needed to be to make this hypothetical universe? Do all the hydrogen atoms fly around in this universe and say "you know, if the constants were slightly different, we wouldn't all be hydrogen atoms...there must be an intelligent entity out there who had hydrogen atoms in mind from the beginning, and who specifically fine tuned everything to make all this possible"? I don't think the hydrogen atoms would say that because, unlike we humans, they don't have such big egos.

No matter what numbers you pick for the mathematical constants in the physical laws of the universe, it seems to me that any combination of numbers is as unlikely as any other (as you said, no natural laws that we know of require the constants to be the way they are now). So, in asking why we have the constants that we do, I would ask: why not? Does it make sense to look at a hand of thirteen cards drawn from a 52 card deck, and conclude that the odds of you getting this particular hand are so small that someone must have used their intelligence to specifically rig the deck to create that outcome?

Atheism unscientific? I've got to respond to that :

You say that the mathematical constants in the laws of physics are not caused by anything--there is no natural law dictating what those constants must be. IF that is true, then we are at the limits of what we can come to know through science, and nothing more can be said about what causes the universe. Adding an intelligent entity for which there is zero evidence would be a clear violation of Occam's Razor.

The only thing science can say on this issue is "this is what the constants are. If they were different, the universe would be different. These constants are uncaused (or, we do not know what causes them)". If you have evidence of what causes the physical laws, please share it. I did not see in your post any evidence that the physical laws of the universe were caused by anything (much less an intelligent being).

Philosophically speaking, if the mathematical constants in physical laws truly have no cause, they are the Prime Mover.

For now, I think atheism is not a belief--scientifically, it remains the status quo--theists are the ones who speculate on what might be without any evidence in support.

[Orthodox]

Hey spinkles,

Thanks for your reply! I may have been a liitle sloppy with some of my point making (I reply to that one first)!

Saying that [because the universe will 'die'] it must have been started by something bigger and more powerful than itself is conjecture.

No it's not. I think you will agree with me (and atheists like Satre) that a self-caused being is an impossibility. So anything that has an end cannot be infinite, cannot have self-caused itself, and therefore, must have a beginning. I also was relying on the statments made in the above paragraphs to make my point valid.

Does it make sense to look at a hand of thirteen cards drawn from a 52 card deck, and conclude that the odds of you getting this particular hand are so small that someone must have used their intelligence to specifically rig the deck to create that outcome?

Not if the odds are that small, but on the large scale an inquiry would be common sense. In the case of the 'constants' not only are the variables highly unlikely, but they are also highly specific. Each 'constant' must arise entirely independently of the others, but all seem tailored to support life. This is a highly unlikely, highly specific outcome. To use the card analogy; Pretend you and I were both equally good at poker, and that we played 20,000 games of it (a rather conservative number considering the cosmic proportions). One would expect that I would win 50% and you would win 50% of the games. However, if 20,000 times in a row I was dealt (or dealt myself) a royal flush then alarm bells would begin to ring in your mind. You would think that I rigged it. Again, that is what scientists are suggesting, someone 'rigged' the universe. The 'each outcome is equally unlikely' excuse is not valid given the specification of the 'constants'. Those famous scientists I quoted said themselves that it looks as if some 'superintellect' 'monkeyed', 'finetuned' or 'adsjusted' the ratios to produce life supportable condidtions.

Adding an intelligent entity for which there is zero evidence would be a clear violation of Occam's Razor.

Mmmmmm... not sure about your understanding of Ockham's Razor. In his Razor Ockham affirms that 'causes should not be muliplied without without necessity'. Often the popular form of the Razor, 'the simplest explanation is the best explanation', is taken to mean 'the fewest, the truest', this is not correct, simple does not necessarily imply few. In the case of the 'constants', the evidence suggests that we needn't complicate the equation by staking its proclaimation on a tiny tiny hope, that the universe has no creator. According to Ockham, we must just go where the flow of evidence is pointing us and accept that the universe has a creator.

Philosophically speaking, if the mathematical constants in physical laws truly have no cause, they are the Prime Mover

No one suggested that they were. From scientific studies we know that in a big bang singularity the rules of science break down, ratios disappear. Thats why their present condition is so very remarkable. An incredibly simplified analogy would be putting an apple in the blender and having it come out as a whole carrot.

For now, I think atheism is not a belief--scientifically, it remains the status quo--theists are the ones who speculate on what might be without any evidence in support.

Are you saying there isd evidence against a God? If so please share it! Obviousley none of us knows everything, so, making a proclaimation about what isn't existent is a riddiculous call. You need to know everything to know what does not exist, this is not the case with knowing that something does exist. If I asked you to prove that there was no such thing as a white crow (stand in for God) you would need to find every crow in the world and make sure it was not white. On the other hand if I asked you to prove that a white crow does exist all you may have to do is walk outside and see one in a tree, no further searching required.

Given this, can Atheism be logically viable whatever the case of our evidence? Wouldn't agnostic be a more appropriate term for the condition of your belief in God? Also, scientifically atheism is not the status quo. As I have shown most scientists have sided with some form of religious thinking.

Orthodox

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

"The purpose of this posting is to demonstrate the unscientific nature of atheistic belief."

I don't think you made a case for that goal. You have failed to show that any alternative to Atheism is scientific - thus equating your stated purpose to an unscientific God. If, as you say, Atheism is unscientific (and it is for it is not concerned with science at all) then so you must also say also say God is unscientifc.

-pah-

[Mister Emu]

I don't think you made a case for that goal. You have failed to show that any alternative to Atheism is scientific - thus equating your stated purpose to an unscientific God. If, as you say, Atheism is unscientific (and it is for it is not concerned with science at all) then so you must also say also say God is unscientifc.

I think the problem with the mindset Atheism=Science is that too many modern day atheists try to back up their assertions of no God with science, and too many scientists think atheisism is "the" scientific view because they were taught atheistic views all through school.

Neither Atheism nor any religion are scientific, yet the view that there is some kind of higher power has a scientific base, and many of the scientific community's fore-fathers were clearly theists of some sort.

I believe(not sure, but I remember seeing this quote somewhere, if I'm wrong please tell me ) Darwin said something to the effect of: I believe that there was a God not because of any spiritual revelation, but because the odds of a supreme being creating the universe are greater than that of any other creation theory.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

[quote=Mister Emu]I think the problem with the mindset Atheism=Science is that too many modern day atheists try to back up their assertions of no God with science, and too many scientists think atheisism is "the" scientific view because they were taught atheistic views all through school.

I agree that there is a problem. But the proof of God/No God falls into agruments of history and formal logic (philosophy), as well. Yet no one would dare say that history or logic is Atheistic. The confusion some harbor is rooted in melding the two strongest argumentistic "enemies" of God.

Neither Atheism nor any religion are scientific, yet the view that there is some kind of higher power has a scientific base, and many of the scientific community's fore-fathers were clearly theists of some sort.

I have heard no scientic evidence for the existence of a higher power. The thrust of Creationism is an defensive attack on ideas that threaten the truth of a God existing and nothing in a positve, scietific vein.

I believe(not sure, but I remember seeing this quote somewhere, if I'm wrong please tell me ) Darwin said something to the effect of: I believe that there was a God not because of any spiritual revelation, but because the odds of a supreme being creating the universe are greater than that of any other creation theory]

I have not heard that before and would appreciate, if you can find it again, a more accurate quote. I suspect it it much like the death-bed regret Darwin had of his work - a made up, biased myth.

-pah-