Divine Design
"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."
James Tour, Nanoscientist
There are more than 122 Anthropic Constants, if any one of these were altered, we would all be dead. Athrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that all 122 constants would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (without God). Assuming there are 100000000000000000000000 planets in the universe, there is a one in 10 with 138 zeros after it! There are only 10 with 70 zeros after it atoms in the entire universe. In fact, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life supporting conditions we have.
Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an anthropic constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 26 percent, fires would erupt spontaneously; if it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.
Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earths surface. If it were more transparent, we would be bombarded with far too much solar radiation. In addition to atmospheric transparency, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ozone are in themselves anthropic constants.
Anthropic Constant 3: Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction If this interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere and rotational period would be to sever. If it was less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.
Anthropic Constant 4: Carbon Dioxide Level If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we'd all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we would suffocate)
Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity If the gravitational force were altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist and therefore, neither would we.
A small change in the universe would result in big problems for us as well. As we have seen scientists have discovered that the universe is precisely designed to create the very narrow envelope of life-supporting conditions here on earth. Any slight variation in on of a number of environmental and physical factors would preclude us from even existing.
The extent of the universe's fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle one of the most powerful argument for the existence of God. It's not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by change. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer. We've already identified 5 of them. Here are 10 more:
If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly that it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.
Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299, 792, 458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.
If water vapors in the level of the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect temperatures to rise to high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth to cold for human life.
If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike earth.
If the thickness of Earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.
If the rotation of the earth to longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be to great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wing velocities would be too great.
The 23-degree axil tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.
If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.
If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there was less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back on the continents through tectonic uplift.
Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, codiscover of the radiation afterglow, put it this way: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life, In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, on might say, supernatural plan."
Cosmologist Ed Harrison uses the word proof when he considers the implications of the Anthrpic Principle on the question of God. "Here is the cosmological proof for the existence of God-the design argument of Paley-updated and refurbished, The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design."
I am going to have to do a part 2 of part 2 on "How do atheist respond" Should have it done by the end of the weekend. Thanks you!
Comments
This quote says it all about what is happening in the field of cosmology.
"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
- Robert Jastrow, (God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute, and director of the Mount Wilson
Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
and i must say your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. You do understand , of course, that these so called anthropic constants cannot
a.) be assigned probablilities, as we do not neccessarily know the composition of other planets and the percentages of comonality within expected norms etc. and b.) as far as most scientists know, life can exist in entirely different manners than that of our current carbon based existance. That makes most of yoru babble about exact specifiactions moot, doesn't it?
Furthermore, the you heavily exploit the concept of design to make your points. Yet again, this is fundamentally flawed. You are willing to forsake teh fact that your probablilities are incorrect (which i know for a fact they are) or take in to account our lack of total understanding of planets and the most probable conditions for planet formation. Lastly, a point attempting to indicate a designer is moot simply because, the moment we find another planet within a habitable zone or with microbial life (which many suspect mars once had) the anthropic opints fail again. In fact, this would result in some nasty probablilities that would harm your initial points.
End of story: don't argue a designer with math skewering based on incomplete facts and blantant (and distinctly unscientific) assumptions. If there is a god this most certainly does not prove it. My complements on the style, it was suprememly convincing (and imo deceitful).
Oh and PS just because one out of the uncounted thousands of well educated cosmologists was swayed by your point, does not indicate the supreme power of you logic.
blackregiment
It is like discovering turtle on a fence post. One thing anyone will immediately know for sure, the turtle didn't get there by itself, someone or something put it there. The same can be said for all of the fine tuning in the universe.
May God bless you for your efforts.