My very good friend Jae Lewis posted on his Facebook wall this evening about the overwhelmingly improbable spontaneous existence of a life supporting universe. A very interesting dialogue followed that I thought was worth sharing. Feel free to join the discussion on Facebook or here on our blog.
Science now knows that life prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than a life permitting universe.
Our existence has defied the odds so authoritatively that "random chance" is now a very ignorant answer. The only two remaining educated answers are Design or Multiple Universes. Guess which one has ZERO empirical evidence? That's right, the Multi-Verse Theory = a wild guess.
Most educated answer today = Design = only Minds Design (numbers are not causal) = only a Person has a Mind = a Person with a Mind who chose to Design humans must value humans = Jesus Christ
Technically, we only know of one universe. However, the odds of life sprouting in any given galaxy is small. Lets say 1,000,000 to 1. However, any data on the subject is just guessing and is based on carbon based life like we have here when life could be based on any particular atom theoretically. There is also an assumption that a planet would have to be in the Goldilock zone to support life. An assumption that we have found to be false even on our own planet with life existing in some of the most hostile environments. Now, with the infinite size of space, we can run a simple mathematical equation. If it is 1,000,000 to one odds, which it is probably better odds for non carbon based lifeforms, the math is: ∞/1,000,000=∞. So technically life sprouting in the universe randomly has an infinite chance to happen and infinite number of times. Now the odds of us happening to be one of these species that evolved to our state is very very rare. But here we are. Someone who has a very rare disease had very little odds of having the disease. But being that person with it, you still have it despite the odds. Now, I am not ruling out the possibility of creationism, and that is because it is possible. But evolution outside of creationism is also possible so it should not be ruled out either. And I hate to quote South Park, but I will. When they were learning about evolution and they told the kids that because of it there is no God, Stan chimed in with. "There could still be a God. Couldn't evolution be the answer to how not the answer to why?"
Your being a little short sighted with your odds. Space has a populated size, and the odds of life being on this planet are more like a billion trillion. Most staticians/astronomers/biologists would agree that it is it is (if you don't want to use the word miraculous) amazing that there is life. In fact even when you account for the vast number of galaxies we can see now, statistically there is still quite a low chance of there being life on other planets.
Well it is also arguable the God just popping into existence being as complex as he is and and powerful as he is is more highly unlikely. If it is unlikely for human beings, a simple creature in comparison to God, to just pop into existence. Then it is far more unlikely for God to happen to pop into existence. All i am saying is even the most die hard atheist still leave room for the possibility that creationism could be true. Richard Dawkins admits this in the God delusion. It is simply because we will never have enough evidence to conclude 100% one way or the other. All i am saying is that creationist should use the same measure that it is possible for it to have happend without God, however unlikely it may seem. Either way the searching of the universe and the exploration of the past and the creatures who have evolved on this planet since millions of years ago will only get us closer to the truth. Weather it be creationism or big bang, or aliens, we must search the evidence and find the truth if it ever comes to be. Jesus as an example showed that sometimes you have to go against the grain of common religious beliefs to more accurately approach the truth. He showed that the ideals of the old testament and strict laws once worked, but were inapplicable in his time. Perhaps today in this age of knowledge we are in, it is time to accept that old stories about how the earth was created in the mind of prehistoric men, is not applicable with our current understanding. We must adapt our thinking.
Also, I might add that Jae's stance was not against evolution. I think a minority of Christians oppose evolution. Jae was arguing for a designed and created universe. One that so uniquely supports life that many opponents of creationism fall back to having no more than faith in thearies such as infinite universes. (typing on a computer > ipad)
The astronomer Hugh Ross was drawn to Christianity in early in his life because he found a remarkable accuracy in the book of Genesis to what he observed in science. He has written a few books outlining in great detail how the bible is actually amazingly accurate when compared to what we now know about how a universe and planets form. I think it would at the very least be a fascinating read. The trick is, there is no 100% proof one way or the other. You can't current prove, empirically, the existence of God, or vice-versa. The debate does however tip heavily towards the existence of God. There are many pillars of rational thought that Christianity has to stand on and is backed up with philosophy, science, and history (and don't forget experiential evidence). Would you rather stand back from religion merely because you can't get to 100% even when the scale leans in its favor? The bible doesn't guarantee doubt-proof evidence, but it also doesn't make allowances for rejecting it for a "lack of evidence".
Jaret, I take issue with a few of the points you made in your posts and would like to address them. I do however appreciate your openness on the subject. Anyone who espouses the idea that God CERTAINLY does NOT exist can hardly be taken seriously for the reasons you have pointed out.
First, I think the statistics you use in your example of “life in any given galaxy” are exceptionally inaccurate. If we consider the list of required constants and ratios (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravitation constant, electromagnetic force, expansion rate, mass density etc..) and ask the question “what are the odds of a universe that permits life”, we find that it is 1 chance in ten to the power of 229 (see research of Physisist Lee Smolin). That’s 1 with 229 zeros after it, not 1 in a million. Said another way, the odds of a life permitting universe are unfathomably small. At this degree the word “impossible” comes to mind. Also, we are talking about the entire universe, not just a galaxy.
Second, you gave the example of ∞/1,000,000 = ∞. I would caution your use of this example because this mathematical equation only points out the rational impossibility of anything physical existing infinitely (either time or individual object). Your mathematical equation is mathematically impossible. A quick example of why infinity cannot exist physically is this: if planet A orbits the sun twice every 365 days and planet B orbits the sun once every 365 then how many more times has planet A orbited the sun relative to planet B over an infinite span of time? The answer is zero. Both planets would have orbited an infinite number of times. This is logically and mathematically absurd. My point is there cannot exist anything physical that is infinite. You may find a particular article (recently released) by Alexander Vilenkin of Tuft University interesting. The article explains why none of the proposals for an eternal universe are workable: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and the "cosmic egg" hypothesis. In each case, the mathematics and the laws of physics can't eliminate the need for a starting point. This forces the community of naturalistic astronomers to face what they have been trying to avoid: a beginning. In response to this article/research Stephen Hawking said "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God." The evidence is mounting at a nauseating level that our universe at some point began to exist.
Third, you argue that it is “more unlikely” that God could pop into existence than a universe. I am not sure that you can support that argument in any objective way but I strain to even object to it because it is also fallacious given your misunderstanding of the definition of God. God as defined would not “pop” into existence. He would be eternal, his existence infinite. Therefore your example does not make sense. A universe could pop into existence (being caused by something), God, by definition, could not. So to analyze the relative likelihood of either is illogical. It is important to note here (given my second argument above) that God is not physical and therefore allowed to be infinite. God would be uncreated, having always existed. It seems I can argue much easier than you that an infinite immaterial God exists than you can an infinite universe. In a similar vein I can also point out why your point is mathematically impossible and mine is not.
Also, you say that you “do not have enough evidence to conclude 100% one way or the other”. I find this to be a very interesting argument, as we NEVER have 100% evidence for anything. We act every day of our lives on faith (will my marriage succeed, will I get killed driving to work, does this food contain bacteria that will kill me etc…)
Last, you suggest that “in this age of knowledge” we should “adapt our thinking”. I agree completely but I am not sure you would appreciate the outcome. As our knowledge of physics, cosmology, biology and the like increases we are finding more and more need for a creator. Physics shows us the impossibility of a universe existing without God, cosmology shows us the FINITE existence of the universe and as a result the need for an uncaused cause, and finally biology shows us that at the most basic level life is guided by language (DNA) which we can only relate to an attribute to an intelligent mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment