Evidence for God from Science

I came across this article, which seems really great. It's from bethinking.org, but was not published there first (see note at bottom). The author is on the board of the organization that "publishes" bethinking.org.

Fine Tuning the Multiverse Theory
Peter May

Peter May serves on the General Synod of the Church of England and on the Trust Board of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF). He is a retired GP.


A friend of mine was enjoying a coffee break at an Open University seminar for his philosophy course. Out of the blue, a colleague asked him, “Why do you believe in God?” He was a bit taken aback but, after a few deep breaths, managed to order his thoughts and summarised several different lines of argument. As he did so, he found that other conversations in the room gradually stopped, until everyone was listening to him. When he finished, his questioner said, “That is amazing. I have never heard anyone answer that question before. In fact, I did not think that Christians had reasons for belief in God.”

Certainly, the reasons we can offer are diverse, and some seem more compelling than others. I was particularly interested to see recently the 90 minute DVD called “Collision”, which features atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian pastor Douglas Wilson in dialogue on a book promotion tour.[1] I have yet to read their book, which is a conversation between them on the subject, “Is Christianity Good for the World?”

The film, anyway, is sharp, quirky and engaging. They both speak with wit and candour, and don't pull any punches. On the dust cover, Hitchens is quoted as saying, “Christianity is a wicked cult and it is high time we left it behind.” Wilson is quoted alongside saying, “There are two tenets of atheism. One, there is no God. Two, I hate him.” This rough and tumble dialogue is certainly educational, though not for the faint-hearted!

Despite appearances, they both hold each other in mutual respect, and this is shown in a number of informal exchanges, where they have almost forgotten that the cameras are still rolling. A particular sequence comes right at the end of the film, when they are relaxing together as passengers in a car.

Hitchens raised the question as to which was the strongest argument used against atheists and he had no difficulty in identifying it. “The fine-tuning argument we all agree is the most intriguing. It is not trivial — we all say that.” Here he is clearly speaking for his New Atheist friends. Hitchens is emphatic and repeats the point, “We all agree about that.”

Now one might be forgiven for not realising this, as Dawkins is quite dismissive of the fine-tuning argument. He states the problem correctly: “Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible.” This mystery has become known as the Goldilocks Enigma, because the universe appears to be 'just right' for us in the same way as the little bear's porridge, chair and bed were all 'just right' for Goldilocks in the children's story.

Dawkins concludes, “As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values … would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that is very improbable indeed.” He is left marvelling at the number of people, who seem genuinely satisfied by the 'Divine Knob-Twiddler' argument, as he crudely puts it.[2]

Let us then revisit the argument. For the universe to exist as it does and allow intelligent life to exist, it requires an astonishing series of 'coincidences' to have occurred. Stephen Hawking suggested that it is like a hoard of monkeys hammering away on typewriters and by pure chance eventually producing one of Shakespeare's sonnets.[3]

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.[4]

Physicist Paul Davies estimated that for electromagnetism a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 would have spelled disaster for stars, like our sun, thereby precluding the existence of planets.

The gravitational force must be what it is for planets to have stable orbits around the sun. Otherwise if they had a greater force they would fall into the sun and burn up or if weaker, they would escape from their orbit into a very cold outer darkness. It is estimated that a change in gravity by only one part in 10 to the power of 100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.[5]

If the electric charge on an electron were only slightly different, stars would be unable to burn hydrogen and helium[6] and produce the chemical elements such as carbon and oxygen that make up our bodies. Similarly, the orbit of electrons in atoms would not be stable, so matter as we know it would not exist.

Stephen Hawking wrote, “If the rate of 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 before it ever reached its present size.”[7]

Not only must each of these quantities be exquisitely fine tuned but their ratios to each other must be finely tuned. As William Craig writes, “Improbability is added to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.”[8]

How are these extraordinary numbers to be explained? The most popular explanation and the one that appeals to Dawkins, is the 'multiverse'. The idea here is that, unbeknown to us, there are other universes, all slightly different, so that it becomes more likely that in that number, a universe like ours might exist. Davies wrote, “The multiverse theory seeks to replace the appearance of design by the hand of chance.”[9] I have read some accounts that leave one to believe that a relatively small number of other universes would significantly alter the probabilities. That however is clearly not the case.

How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500. It might help to see that number written out. It is 1 with 500 zeroes after it.

Here goes: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
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,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.[10]

Now it must be understood that there is no hard evidence at all for the existence of any other universes and, if they exist, we would never be able to see them or have any contact with them. Can this then be considered a scientific idea if it cannot be tested by experiment or observation? Davies states, “It can be validly objected that a theory which rests on entities that are in principle unobservable cannot be described as scientific.”[11]

Well might William of Occam turn uneasily in his grave! This 14th century English friar proposed the idea (known as Occam's Razor) that one should not multiply causes needlessly. The simpler of two competing explanations is generally to be preferred, unless that simpler explanation can be confidently ruled out.

In fact, I think I heard old William chuckle the other day, unless it was thunder. He must have been reading his copy of New Scientist, dated 28 October 2009.[12] An article entitled 'Multiplying universes: How many is the multiverse?' put forward the latest thinking from cosmologists Andre Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin, suggesting a number of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 10 million universes. Unlike the String theorist figure of 10 with 500 zeroes after it, this new figure could not possibly be written out. Interestingly, the article itself gets the number wrong, greatly underestimating its size — they evidently couldn't believe it either! It is a number so utterly vast as to defy any sensible comment!

Having said that, is it possible that this is either a little cosmological joke (ho, ho, ho!) or have they produced something very close to a mathematical proof for the existence of God? Either way, I cannot imagine that the New Atheists will fall over themselves in their rush to comment!

References:

[1] Available from Amazon. See http://www.collisionmovie.com.
[2] Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.143.
[3] Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.123.
[4] Ibid., p.125.
[5] Davies quoted by Craig, Reasonable Faith, p.158.
[6] Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.
[7] Ibid., p.122.
[8] Craig, God, Are you There? p.22.
[9] Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, p.197.
[10] Ibid., p192.
[11] Ibid., p196.
[12] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... verse.html.

© 2010 Peter May
This article was first published in the Newsletter of the European Leadership Forum.


Another article by Peter May can be found here: Has Science Disproved God?

Atheists often claim that Atheism is belief without God/gods. Thus, Atheism is the default position because if no God/gods were ever thought up then the question would not ever arise (just like belief in the spheghetti monster). However, I think cslewislovers' previous post reveals that the devil is in the details.

Atheism when answering tougher questions about our existence carries with it positive beliefs, such as, belief in a multiverse theory. Therefore, just like Atheists might argue that the default position on God's existence is a belief without God, it can likewise be argued that the default position on the universes and how we came to exist is "amultiverse" (belief without a multiverse).

To try clarify, if we take a surface-level definition of Atheism as simply meaning belief without God, then it seems to me we should be able to likewise declare an infinite amount of universes to not be obvious and so the default position is one of "amultiverse". Therefore, if the multiverse theory is a part of a deeper understanding of Atheism, Atheism when more deeply understood can not be a default position after all.

Thus, it seems to me a fuller understanding of the beliefs subsumed within Atheism leads to this argument for Atheism becoming unstuck. And if I may add, the more obvious position is that the world that we live in is in fact designed. And hence, why perhaps over 90% of all humanity who have ever existed have believed the world to be designed.

you aren't born believing in anything so those atheists you are talking about are sort of right, although some of them believe some pretty nuts things too. I know a atheist who believes in intelligent design, NUTS! I could only believe in incompetant design.

The multi-verse isn't a part of the deeper understanding of Athiesm, because its quite shallow. The only thing an Atheist has to do to be one is to reject god claims. Maybe the rules that are in this universe are the only ones that are possible? If that was so then there wouldn't need to be a multiverse.

How about athorism, the defualt position is to not believe in Thor right?

Kristoffer wrote:you aren't born believing in anything so those atheists you are talking about are sort of right, although some of them believe some pretty nuts things too. I know a atheist who believes in intelligent design, NUTS! I could only believe in incompetant design.

The multi-verse isn't a part of the deeper understanding of Athiesm, because its quite shallow. The only thing an Atheist has to do to be one is to reject god claims. Maybe the rules that are in this universe are the only ones that are possible? If that was so then there wouldn't need to be a multiverse.

Here, I have to agree with Kristoffer. Atheism is based on what is observable or measurable or plausible. The multiverse idiocy - pardon, ''theory'' - is an outgrowth of some old Star Trek episode and is stupid, just STUPID. No God-denyer worth his salt would have dared come up with such lunacy when I was an atheist. He would have been laughed out of our weekly meeting!

We all know that atheists are fools (Ps 14:1) but Multiverse proponents are fools among fools. I almost feel sorry for them!

FL

Kristoffer wrote:you aren't born believing in anything]

I agree, but also disagree.

We may not be born consciously believing in something, but that doesn't mean we are not predisposed ontologically and therefore would believe in something the moment we are developed enough to. For example, I believe our moral conscience predisposes us to believe that some things really are "good" the moment we are developed enough to. Likewise, I think awareness to God's existence is embedded ontologically within humanity.

Kristoffer wrote:The multi-verse isn't a part of the deeper understanding of Athiesm, because its quite shallow.

I disagree. I see no other option left open to Atheists given our own universe is finite (about 14 billions years old). Based on this, the only option I see for an Atheist is to have a positive belief in an infinite number of universes.

It is not a requirement. Not being able to see any other option doesn't mean there isn't one, actually accepting that certain things are unknown wouldn't hurt would it? Or do you know PRECISELY how god created this universe? Its more exciting if its unknown, a Multi-verse is just some dumb, wild speculation. It deserves[to a sceptical person] same burden of proof that "god done it", requires.

It is not the only option, its very "optional", you do not have to believe in the existance potential of non-observable infinate other universes to not believe in a god claim. (however I would really like to hear a Good god claim)

I don't think leaving it as an "unknown" is adequate for someone who positively affirms Atheism, particularly if they are intellectually honest.

Now I have no issue if such a person just takes Atheism based on a blind leap of faith. I have no issue with that... but then I'm left wondering why a person would do that.

Accepting that we don't know is honest. If we knew everything there would be nothing to find out.

I do not see where blind leaps of faith are involved, Just looking at evidence and using a peck of reason(although reason definitely cuts both ways)

Kristoffer wrote:Accepting that we don't know is honest. If we knew everything there would be nothing to find out.

I do not see where blind leaps of faith are involved, Just looking at evidence and using a peck of reason(although reason definitely cuts both ways)

But atheism is not saying that you don't know, it says that you DO know there is no God. Being unsure is agnosticism.

Actually its the rejection of the claim that there is one. Not any special knowledge, if there was a god claim that withstood scrutiny then I would believe it. its like the "multiverse theory", if there was a way to prove all these other [fictional] universes, then I would certainly say, yes that IS how it happened.

Anyway if there is a God, then God is in control of us[maybe He is hardening my heart! Ex 4:21] and if there isn't then we are in control of "God" simply as just a concept, concepts can be good things though.

maybe i should of oppogized in advance.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kristoffer wrote:you aren't born believing in anything]

I agree, but also disagree.

We may not be born consciously believing in something, but that doesn't mean we are not predisposed ontologically and therefore would believe in something the moment we are developed enough to. For example, I believe our moral conscience predisposes us to believe that some things really are "good" the moment we are developed enough to. Likewise, I think awareness to God's existence is embedded ontologically within humanity.

Yes, a recent study shows that we are born with a definite preference (like, about 100%!) to what we grown-ups call "good and helpful people." I personally believe that we are born with an inner compass toward the spiritual or God. If we have a soul to begin with, to me it's a given. We can't know how we think or process things, though, before we learn to communicate . . . I wonder a bit about how knowledge is thought of and used in our brain before we put it all in the context of language.

Kristoffer wrote:It is not the only option, its very "optional", you do not have to believe in the existance potential of non-observable infinate other universes to not believe in a god claim. (however I would really like to hear a Good god claim)

I really don't think you want to see a good God claim. There are plenty of articles--by philosophers, scientists, and others--that explain why logically and rationally they believe there is a God. There are those (often the same writers) who have experienced God personally and so know Him or of Him, however you want to say it, but I'm sure you just simply wouldn't believe them. CS Lewis, in The Last Battle, describes some dwarfs who can't believe even though all the evidence is right in front of their noses. Lol, I just went to try and find a quote about it, and opened up the book to the exact page where it discusses this exact scenario in real life! But, there's more than one page . . . The "dwarfs are for the dwarfs," they keep saying, and Aslan responds to their inability to accept His blessings (and believe in Him), "They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out." [empasis mine]

I assume from your responses that you wouldn't even get anything from this article, even though the well-known atheist philosopher Antony Flew is mentioned, who came to the logical conclusion that there is a diety. Now, if what it will take for you is a personal experience with God Himself, OK, but you can't dismiss every other intelligent person's rational reasons for a belief in God. That in itself is just denial of anyone else's ability to use their brain.

General Introduction for Non-Believers, Part 2: Evidence for Belief in God

Here's a summary of traditional philosophical arguments for the existence of God. From what I can tell, the new atheists simply dismiss them, but at least I can provide this summary here. That page links to more specific treatments of the included topics.

Does God Exist?

It's simply amazing to me that so many learned people through time have made good God claims, and brilliant people have accepted that they are valid, yet you don't think so . . . (I know where I'm going to put my intellectual trust).


Here is a site that is devoted to looking at various arguments for the existence of God: http://www.existence-of-god.com/index.html

Ja, you are right. I can not dismiss all reasons for believing there are some that seem at least on the surface acceptable. Also if you think I am being a pluralist or something...that is not so, I think Either one religion(or even irreligion) is true or none of them.

As long as you do not resort to pascals wager, which is entirely unconvincing. (I am tired of it) Personal experience, would have to be really personal, you can't have someone else's experience can you? So what is left is looking to see if god is guilty or not guilty of creating the universe, if there is any kind of "prints", I would be interested. GOD©200,000BC in human DNA would be very convincing.

Kristoffer wrote:Anyway if there is a God, then God is in control of us[maybe He is hardening my heart! Ex 4:21] and if there isn't then we are in control of "God" simply as just a concept, concepts can be good things though.

The Bible is pretty clear that God doesn't harden hearts... So why are you hardening your heart?