Evidence for God from Science

I linked to one of Dr. Ross' pages (in his book) about the Cosmological Constant.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

This scientist, Ken Perrott, claims that Dr. R misused the facts, is this true?

For example the claim that Cosmological Constant cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10^120 for life to be possible. This is just a misuse of the facts. The actual finding is that the theoretical value of the cosmological value differs from the measured value by 10^123 times. The most extreme discrepancy between theoretical and measured values in physics!

So desperate people looking for a “proof” for their beliefs distort this to claim 1 in 10^120 fine tuning! Hardly honest - but it's the sort of thing that Christian apologetics seems to get caught up in..

It just reinforces the danger of selecting evidence (actually distorting evidence) to support a preconceived belief rather than following the evidence.

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008 ... mment-7530

It is post #81 in this thread in case anyone is interested.

I am new to this site, but have been watching to see if anyone has a response to this thread. I had heard this argument used in the past, and always thought it was a good one, but now I am curious if it is actually misused or completely false.

Sounds to me like Ken does not understand what is being said.

If the cosmological constant differed by more than 10^120 it is said it would either expand too quickly to form solar stars, or cave in to gravitational forces. Thus, life as we know it would be rendered impossible.

Kurieuo wrote:Sounds to me like Ken does not understand what is being said.

If the cosmological constant differed by more than 10^120 it is said it would either expand too quickly to form solar stars, or cave in to gravitational forces. Thus, life as we know it would be rendered impossible.

Beat me to it, again, Kurieuo! Definitive response.

Kurieuo wrote:Sounds to me like Ken does not understand what is being said.

If the cosmological constant differed by more than 10^120 it is said it would either expand too quickly to form solar stars, or cave in to gravitational forces. Thus, life as we know it would be rendered impossible.

And Ken was saying that this isn't what the evidence suggests: he understands the argument, but he's pointing out that the evidence cited doesn't say what Ross says it does.

And a change of 10^120 is absolutely enormous; how can that be considered 'fine-tuning'?

PS: woo, first post .

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sounds to me like Ken does not understand what is being said.

If the cosmological constant differed by more than 10^120 it is said it would either expand too quickly to form solar stars, or cave in to gravitational forces. Thus, life as we know it would be rendered impossible.

And Ken was saying that this isn't what the evidence suggests: he understands the argument, but he's pointing out that the evidence cited doesn't say what Ross says it does.

And a change of 10^120 is absolutely enormous; how can that be considered 'fine-tuning'?

PS: woo, first post .

Are you really sure Ken was saying that Ross' argument (properly understood) is wrong, which is that the cosmological constant differed by more than 1 part in 10^120 the stated ramifications and life becoming untenable are not true?

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: And Ken was saying that this isn't what the evidence suggests: he understands the argument, but he's pointing out that the evidence cited doesn't say what Ross says it does.

And a change of 10^120 is absolutely enormous; how can that be considered 'fine-tuning'?

PS: woo, first post .

Are you really sure Ken was saying that Ross' argument is wrong, which is that the cosmological constant differed by more than 1 part in 10^120 the stated ramifications and life being untenable are not true?

Err... no, because that's not what I said. I said that Ken is disputing Ross' cited evidence.

Ross claimed that, if the cosmological constant varied by 1 part in 10^120, the universe becomes in hospitible to life.
Ken is pointing out that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence. Rather, Ross twisted (knowingly or otherwise) actual scientific data. This data does not suggest what Ross claims it does.

It's basically an example of invalid logic: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

And I see where I went wrong in my aside .

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: And Ken was saying that this isn't what the evidence suggests: he understands the argument, but he's pointing out that the evidence cited doesn't say what Ross says it does.

And a change of 10^120 is absolutely enormous; how can that be considered 'fine-tuning'?

PS: woo, first post .

Are you really sure Ken was saying that Ross' argument is wrong, which is that the cosmological constant differed by more than 1 part in 10^120 the stated ramifications and life being untenable are not true?

Err... no, because that's not what I said. I said that Ken is disputing Ross' cited evidence.

Ross claimed that, if the cosmological constant varied by 1 part in 10^120, the universe becomes in hospitible to life.

Yes, that is right.

Ken is pointing out that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence. Rather, Ross twisted (knowingly or otherwise) actual scientific data. This data does not suggest what Ross claims it does.

It's basically an example of invalid logic: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

What is it exactly that was twisted? Are you saying if the universe differed by 1 in 10^120 then everything would run just fine?

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: It's basically an example of invalid logic: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

What is it exactly that was twisted? Are you saying if the universe differed by 1 in 10^120 then everything would run just fine?

I'm saying we don't know. The evidence we have acquired thus far is insufficient, and so it is disingenuous to state either which way.

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: It's basically an example of invalid logic: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

What is it exactly that was twisted? Are you saying if the universe differed by 1 in 10^120 then everything would run just fine?

I'm saying we don't know. The evidence we have acquired thus far is insufficient, and so it is disingenuous to state either which way.

The evidence we have acquired so far shows vacuum energy does exist. Should we believe otherwise? If not, then how about you propose an alternate probability for the cosmological constant to the one Ross has gone with?

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: I'm saying we don't know. The evidence we have acquired thus far is insufficient, and so it is disingenuous to state either which way.

The evidence we have acquired so far shows vacuum energy does exist. Should we believe otherwise? If not, then how about you propose an alternate probability for the cosmological constant to the one Ross has gone with?

Again, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that Ken is saying that Ross' cited evidence doesn't imply that "changing the cosmological constant by one part in 10^120 voids life".

And even if such a claim were true, so what? We expect the universe to be 'tuned' for life: we live in it. No matter what caused our universe (if it had a cause at all), it must have done it in such a way that life is possible. It could be, for instance, that the cosmological constant can only take discrete values: we only know what value it is, not what values it could take. It is, again, disingenuous to postulate something for which no evidence thus far exists.

Oh, and you might want to read through the article you cited. I don't think it says what you'd like it to say.

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

DD_8630 wrote: I'm saying we don't know. The evidence we have acquired thus far is insufficient, and so it is disingenuous to state either which way.

The evidence we have acquired so far shows vacuum energy does exist. Should we believe otherwise? If not, then how about you propose an alternate probability for the cosmological constant to the one Ross has gone with?

Again, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that Ken is saying that Ross' cited evidence doesn't imply that "changing the cosmological constant by one part in 10^120 voids life".

Well since I keep getting it wrong, again I ask what exactly you think this "cited evidence" of Ross' is?

And even if such a claim were true, so what? We expect the universe to be 'tuned' for life: we live in it. No matter what caused our universe (if it had a cause at all), it must have done it in such a way that life is possible.

This reasoning is circular for it assumes what must be proven - the cause of life. I've seen many Atheists comment: "So what? Life exists so no matter how improbable it seems it happened."

However, the fact the result of life is a significant outcome compared to what otherwise may have been possible, in addition to the massive improbabilities, makes belief in design a rationally justified option (to put it mildly). I believe there is really no other way to describe the thinking implied in the Atheist's comments as anything but gullible, and I will provide my reasons why I believe this to be so.

I remember seeing a video on YouTube by an atheist. He got a packet of sugar, poured it into the pan, showed on camera how they landed and then sarcastically remarked something along the lines of: "Wow, the odds of all those grains of sugar landing in the exact way they did is astronomically improbable. We've witnessed a miracle. Well not really, but it happened nonetheless." There is no significance however to the result. If on the other hand, he poured the sugar into the pan and then the camera showed a smiley face as the result, surely it would only be an entirely gullible person who would believe the grains of sugar actually did land in that arrangement without any intelligent involvement designing it?

Kurieuo wrote: Well since I keep getting it wrong, again I ask what exactly you think this "cited evidence" of Ross' is?

"The actual finding is that the theoretical value of the cosmological value differs from the measured value by 10^123 times."

Kurieuo wrote:

And even if such a claim were true, so what? We expect the universe to be 'tuned' for life: we live in it. No matter what caused our universe (if it had a cause at all), it must have done it in such a way that life is possible.

This reasoning is circular for it assumes what must be proven - the cause of life.

It assumes nothing of the sort. It points out that life exists. If life exists, the universe must be capable of harbouring it. If it wasn't, life couldn't exist. Since it does, it does.

It's almost tautologous in its simplicity.

Kurieuo wrote: I've seen many Atheists comment: "So what? Life exists so no matter how improbable it seems it happened."

However, the fact the result of life is a significant outcome compared to what otherwise may have been possible, in addition to the massive improbabilities, makes belief in design a rationally justified option (to put it mildly). I believe there is really no other way to describe the thinking implied in the Atheist's comments as anything but gullible, and I will provide my reasons why I believe this to be so.

The argument says nothing about how life came to be, merely the universe in which it finds itself. By hook or by crook, the universe must be in such a state that life can exist; if it couldn't, life could never exist in the first place (be it by divine intervention or abiogenesis).

Kurieuo wrote: I remember seeing a video on YouTube by an atheist. He got a packet of sugar, poured it into the pan, showed on camera how they landed and then sarcastically remarked something along the lines of: "Wow, the odds of all those grains of sugar landing in the exact way they did is astronomically improbable. We've witnessed a miracle. Well not really, but it happened nonetheless." There is no significance however to the result. If on the other hand, he poured the sugar into the pan and then the camera showed a smiley face as the result, surely it would only be an entirely gullible person who would believe the grains of sugar actually did land in that arrangement without any intelligent involvement designing it?

The Face of Mars begs to differ:



This is a purely mundane phenomenon, no?

I daresay the point of the video was to show that we shouldn't always be surprised that a highly improbable event occurred. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. These dramatically increases the odds of there being at least one habitable planet, especially given the versatility of life.

While counter-intuitive, the improbable becomes inevitable as the number of trials tends to infinity (and beyond). That's why it's no surprise that someone wins the lottery: though it's improbable for any one person to win, there are enough trials to overcome this.

DD_8630 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Well since I keep getting it wrong, again I ask what exactly you think this "cited evidence" of Ross' is?

"The actual finding is that the theoretical value of the cosmological value differs from the measured value by 10^123 times."

Kurieuo wrote:

And even if such a claim were true, so what? We expect the universe to be 'tuned' for life: we live in it. No matter what caused our universe (if it had a cause at all), it must have done it in such a way that life is possible.

This reasoning is circular for it assumes what must be proven - the cause of life.

It assumes nothing of the sort. It points out that life exists. If life exists, the universe must be capable of harbouring it. If it wasn't, life couldn't exist. Since it does, it does.

I think you know the real issue here. If that was all being argued then who would disagree? What is circular is saying life is here, so it must have arisen by chance and/or necessity without any sort of intelligent guidance, regardless of how improbable or impossible that such a happening might be within the physical laws of our universe.

Kurieuo wrote: I remember seeing a video on YouTube by an atheist. He got a packet of sugar, poured it into the pan, showed on camera how they landed and then sarcastically remarked something along the lines of: "Wow, the odds of all those grains of sugar landing in the exact way they did is astronomically improbable. We've witnessed a miracle. Well not really, but it happened nonetheless." There is no significance however to the result. If on the other hand, he poured the sugar into the pan and then the camera showed a smiley face as the result, surely it would only be an entirely gullible person who would believe the grains of sugar actually did land in that arrangement without any intelligent involvement designing it?

The Face of Mars begs to differ:



This is a purely mundane phenomenon, no?

Begs to differ to what? You just prove my point. You would not have used that example if we knew it was designed. Obviously closer investigations reveal it was not. On the other hand, if this means you would believe a smiley face formed from grains of sugar being poured into a pan, then I think this plays well to my point about gullibility.

I think many would love to play a game of cards or dice with you.

I daresay the point of the video was to show that we shouldn't always be surprised that a highly improbable event occurred. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. These dramatically increases the odds of there being at least one habitable planet, especially given the versatility of life.

The point of the video I believe was that every event is improbable, so we should not be surprised when the improbable happens. However, it failed to deal with significant improbable events.

Furthermore, I'd direct you to a book called Rare Earth for your claim that the many stars and galaxies in our universe "dramatically increases the odds of there being at least one habitable planet, especially given the versatility of life." Wikipedia also provides a rundown.

While counter-intuitive, the improbable becomes inevitable as the number of trials tends to infinity (and beyond). That's why it's no surprise that someone wins the lottery: though it's improbable for any one person to win, there are enough trials to overcome this.

And yet, we only know of one universe - ours.