Fine Tuning Of The Universe

[Era Might]

I hope you appreciate the irony that I, an unbeliever, am trying to preserve the Christian Idea of God, and not see him transformed into the monstrous intelligent designer.

[Anomaly]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

"Multiverse" hypotheses seems to be the most popular way for atheists to get around the whole "fine-tuning" problem.  (If there's an infinite of different random universes out there, then at least one of them would have to "get it right.")

The problem with this is that, first, there's absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of all these other infinite universes.  Belief in an infinite multiverse is no more scientific than belief in God, so it's hypocritical for atheist believers in the multiverse to attack "theists" as "unscientific" for believing in something without scientific proof.

Secondly, they largely evade the whole question of what causes all these universes and the physical laws governing them to come into being.  This "random universe generator" would be in itself an incredible thing, which would seem to itself require a lot of "fine-tuning" in order to work.  This hypothesis would simply push back the question of ultimate cause another step further.

LOL.  So the Christian hypothesis is the God created the entire UNIVERSE, solely so that humanity can exist, run the gauntlet of redemption to worship the theoretical God, or face eternal infinite torment.

We don't know why any more than we know how.  We reason, logic, and play make believe, for some theoretical existence whilst despising and rejecting the only reality we can experience.  Sounds reasonable sane to me.  Have any of you ever seen the movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy?  We're the San tribe trying to discern our existential purpose via a Coke bottle.

[Credo in Deum]

2 hours ago, Era Might said:

I hope you appreciate the irony that I, an unbeliever, am trying to preserve the Christian Idea of God, and not see him transformed into the monstrous intelligent designer.

What is the Christian Idea of God?

[Seven77]

 Dang. It seems to me that people are talking past each other here. The problem seems to be with terminology. Catholics are not creationists and we don't believe in the idea of “intelligent design.” As it is commonly understood it is just a reaction against the other extreme of Darwinian evolution.

I think that Socrates is correct but maybe he's going at it the wrong way… and it might surprise some that Era is trying to get at something true…

to be honest, I'm really an amateur when it comes to thinking about science but this article should be helpful I think… it's long but I'm interested in reading it completely…http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

[Era Might]

Just now, Credo in Deum said:

What is the Christian Idea of God?

A transcendent God who created the world out of nothing, by the direct command of his word, and revealed himself in Christ, who revealed God in his person, not in philosophy or science. The Christian God is revealed in his image, not as an object of scientific inquiry. He is not intelligent, he is the subject of intelligence. He is not beautiful, he is the subject of beauty.

[Credo in Deum]

4 minutes ago, Era Might said:

A transcendent God who created the world out of nothing, by the direct command of his word, and revealed himself in Christ, who revealed God in his person, not in philosophy or science. The Christian God is revealed in his image, not as an object of scientific inquiry. He is not intelligent, he is the subject of intelligence. He is not beautiful, he is the subject of beauty.

So God created everything, but his creation cannot reveal something about Him? God did not reveal Himself through science and philosophy and yet Christ was preannounced before His coming and there were magi at the stable to visit Him. 

[Seven77]

12 minutes ago, Era Might said:

A transcendent God who created the world out of nothing, by the direct command of his word, and revealed himself in Christ, who revealed God in his person, not in philosophy or science. The Christian God is revealed in his image, not as an object of scientific inquiry. He is not intelligent, he is the subject of intelligence. He is not beautiful, he is the subject of beauty.

Or, another way to put it would be to say that God is intelligent as no one is intelligent and God is beautiful as nothing is beautiful. Beauty and Intelligence are unchanging qualities in God. He is the source of these things… anything outside of God  can participate in these qualities to varying degrees and thus serve to reflect God. Am I right in putting it this way? 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Seven77

[Era Might]

3 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 for, another way to put it would be to say that God is intelligent as no one is intelligent and God is beautiful as nothing is beautiful. Beauty and Intelligence are unchanging qualities in God. He is the source of these things… anything outside of God  can participate in these qualities to varying degrees and thus serve to reflect God. Am I right in putting it this way? 

Yeah, I mean I could quibble with the language but no language is exact. But I think you get the point...God is beautiful or intelligent only by analogy. The wisdom of God is the foolishness of man, and vice versa. I can believe in this idea of God who transcends our reality, but I can't believe in a God who is merely the founder of our reality. What a pathetic God that would be.

10 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

So God created everything, but his creation cannot reveal something about Him? God did not reveal Himself through science and philosophy and yet Christ was preannounced before His coming and there were magi at the stable to visit Him. 

You do realize that science had deconstructed the Gospels acording to scientific rigor? Why are the laws of probability acceptable, but not the laws of historical criticism? If creationists want to be good scientists, they can't pick and choose what science they follow. History, too, is a science.

[Credo in Deum]

6 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Yeah, I mean I could quibble with the language but no language is exact. But I think you get the point...God is beautiful or intelligent only by analogy. The wisdom of God is the foolishness of man, and vice versa. I can believe in this idea of God who transcends our reality, but I can't believe in a God who is merely the founder of our reality. What a pathetic God that would be.

God is Reality. 

 

6 minutes ago, Era Might said:

 

You do realize that science had deconstructed the Gospels acording to scientific rigor? Why are the laws of probability acceptable, but not the laws of historical criticism? If creationists want to be good scientists, they can't pick and choose what science they follow. History, too, is a science.

Philosophy and Theology are also sciences. 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Socrates]

2 hours ago, Era Might said:

My explanation for the universe's existence, whatever it is, would not be science. I've already explained why the intelligent designer argument is stupid, because it's bad theology and philosophy. Science is a method for building theories and models of the world as we are able to observe it. The intelligent design argument is not about science, it's about theology. It attempts to make a leap from observable phenomena and say something about an invisible God. And in the process, it is creating an idea of God. I don't really care about the scientific measurements, I'm interested in the idea of God that intelligent designers create by attempting to explain God by the scientific method, which is an entirely modern method (and it was the discovery of method itself that really brought about modernity, method took over for revelation and tradition). I reject the premise that God is either intelligent or a designer, and I reject it on traditional Christian grounds (and I've explained why at length in previous posts). Believers start from the premise that there is a god, and then try to use the scientific method to find traces of him. That's not science, it's theology. Science creates a model of the natural world. Christianity is not based on any such model, it's based on an idea of God. They are two different modes of thought that have nothing to do with each other, but certain Christians want to show that their Idea can be reconciled with everything that's true or factual, so they create a stupid hybrid like intelligent design, and in the process they've created a new God, part Henry Ford, part Albert Einstein, part Wizard of Oz.

I reject the argument because it mutilates both science and theology. The measurements are irrelevant (they serve no purpose in the argument except to demonstrate that the world has a structure...well, duh, that's obvious, and from there science becomes irrelevant, and the argument enters the realm of the Idea of God).

 

1 hour ago, Era Might said:

I hope you appreciate the irony that I, an unbeliever, am trying to preserve the Christian Idea of God, and not see him transformed into the monstrous intelligent designer.

 

First, strictly speaking, the observation of the "fine-tuned" universe is not a proof for the existence of God, and was never intended as such.  Many scientists who accept that the universe is "fine-tuned" are not religious believers, but come up with other explanations, such as an infinite number of universes randomly popping into being out of nothing.

However, many see it as evidence pointing towards an intelligent divine Creator, as opposed to the universe coming about by random blind chance occurrences, as materialist atheism would hold.  The fact is that if any one of the values of various constants or physical laws governing the universe were even slightly altered, we would not have a universe in which any kind of intelligent life would be able to exist anywhere.  And the odds of these constants all having such values by pure random chance is statistically nil.

In short, it is extremely unlikely our universe came about by random chance.

To some, this points to a Creator, while others have other explanations, which appear less satisfactory.  Even you say it's obvious that the universe has a structure, though you've given absolutely no explanation as to how this fine-tuned structure would come about in your godless world-view.  Pure dumb luck?  

 

You seem way too hung up on the (admittedly grossly inadequate) language of God as "designer."  (Probably because it conjures up an image of God as some geeky engineering guy making calculations and measurements and drawing up drafts on his computer.)  This fails as all human metaphors to describe God fail.   I'm sure most Christian proponents of the fine-tuning argument would readily admit as much.  God is not Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, or whoever, and nobody says He is.  So maybe forget "designer" and go with "Creator."  The point is that the creation of the universe is the free action of a personal God with intellect and will, rather than merely a meaningless, purposeless cosmic accident, as most atheists would have us believe.  (The point is that the design and order found in creation reflects the divine mind of the Creator.)

 

God's intellect is not the same as human intelligence (God's knowledge is perfect, complete, and instantaneous; He doesn't need to "figure things out."  But Christian theology does not regard God as un-intelligent or mindless.  Christians believe God is a Person (Three Persons, actually) Who is Omniscient, All-Wise, and All-Good, etc., with free will and intellect, who freely and purposefully chose to create the entire universe, and loves His creatures.

God may not be a divine Steve Jobs, but neither is He some blind, mindless, unintelligent force, as you seem to imply.  The concept of "God" you insist on is not in fact the orthodox Christian concept of God, but something quite different.  Your concept is closer to pagan pantheism than to Christianity.  And, again, if God is merely a fiction with no being in reality, it's silly to even debate it.  You simultaneously reject the reality of any God, while insisting that your own concept of God is true, and others wrong - a pointless and nonsensical argument.

Also, the Church has never regarded human reason and the natural sciences as opposed and contradictory to theology and faith, nor that the two can have nothing to do with one another.  That's a modern secularist and atheistic notion, not a Christian one.  The Church regards faith and reason as complementary.

You're not preserving the Christian "Idea of God," but pushing a heretical idea of God, while at the same time denying His reality.

[Socrates]

55 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 Dang. It seems to me that people are talking past each other here. The problem seems to be with terminology. Catholics are not creationists and we don't believe in the idea of “intelligent design.” As it is commonly understood it is just a reaction against the other extreme of Darwinian evolution.

The concept of "Intelligent Design" is in no way contrary to the Catholic Faith.  I believe in "Intelligent Design," as I believe all creatures to be created purposefully by a loving God with intellect and free will.  

I do not believe the creation of the physical universe to be simply a series of random, purposeless occurrences.  Such a view would be closer to atheism.

[Era Might]

31 minutes ago, Socrates said:

You're not preserving the Christian "Idea of God," but pushing a heretical idea of God, while at the same time denying His reality.

Man, you so wrong I can't spend the time to explain why. God has no reality, but you will take that statement as atheism or nihilism, or accuse me of flaunting my learning. You have no context for what reality means, so what can I say? You're using words and have no idea what they mean philosophically. God has no reality. Take it as you will.

12 minutes ago, Socrates said:

The concept of "Intelligent Design" is in no way contrary to the Catholic Faith.  I believe in "Intelligent Design," as I believe all creatures to be created purposefully by a loving God with intellect and free will.  

I do not believe the creation of the physical universe to be simply a series of random, purposeless occurrences.  Such a view would be closer to atheism.

Keep drinking the Kool aid. Your Americanism is turning you into a Protestant and  heretic.

[xSilverPhinx]

23 hours ago, Socrates said:

To answer your question, yes, I do.  I finally watched the video, and while I know nothing about Dr. Craig, the video was simply summarizing in simple terms mathematical observations and arguments others (including a number of respected and renowned physicists and mathematicians) have made regarding the physical constants that govern our universe.  Not all of them come to the conclusion that God exists, but the "fine-tuning" of the universe is pretty well established mathematically - that is that outside an extremely narrow range of constants, the universe could not exist.  These include scientists such as Roger Penrose, Owen Gingerish, Fred Hoyle, Walter Bradley, Brandon Carter, and Paul Davies.  So far, I've found atheistic attempts to explain the fine-tuned universe (such as multiverse hypotheses) unconvincing.  

None of the people I've read on the fine-tuned universe argument were literal six-day young-earth creationists, so its dishonest to act as though the idea of the fine-tuned universe is the concoction of ignorant backwoods Bible-thumpers intent on proving that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.

Whenever you have time, you're welcome to show how the fine-tuning claims are wrong, but so far, I've seen nothing of substance.

Well, you should read "Dr." Craig's thesis, if it's still in the interwebs, that is. What a load of -censored-! 

Apparently the "narrow" constraints are not so narrow, but anyhoo...

Wasn't Fred Hoyle the one who thought that the Big Bang theory was false? 

I know your kind.  You're not going to think anything I say is of substance, so I really don't think I'll bother being drawn into this endless game. I don't have a formed opinion on whether I believe the multiverse is real, perhaps there is another me out there in some other universe that would engage in this...not this one, though.   

 

 

[Guest]

Edited June 6, 2016 by Guest

[Era Might]

An insightful talk by Fr. George Coyne, S.J., head of the Vatican Observatory:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/coyne-evolution.htm

Quote

How are we to interpret the scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief. Do we need God to explain this? Very succinctly my answer is no. In fact, to need God would be a very denial of God. God is not the response to a need. One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God. This is the exact opposite of what human intelligence is all about. We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation. We should not need God; we should accept her/him when he comes to us.

But the personal God I have described is also God, creator of the universe. It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.

If we take the results of modern science seriously, then what science tells us of God must be very different from God as seen by the medieval philosophers and theologians. For the religious believer modern science reveals a God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God. Such a view of creation can be found in early Christian writings, especially in those of St. Augustine in his comments on Genesis. If they respect the results of modern science, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly. Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words. Scripture is very rich in these thoughts. It presents, indeed anthropomorphically, a God who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe. God is working with the universe. The universe has a certain vitality of its own like a child does. It has the ability to respond to words of endearment and encouragement. You discipline a child but you try to preserve and enrich the individual character of the child and its own passion for life. A parent must allow the child to grow into adulthood, to come to make its own choices, to go on its own way in life. Words which give life are richer than mere commands or information. In such wise does God deal with the universe. It is for reasons of this description that I claim that Intelligent Design diminishes God, makes her/him an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.

These are very weak images, but how else do we talk about God. We can only come to know God by analogy. The universe as we know it today through science is one way to derive analogical knowledge of God.  For those who believe modern science does say something to us about God, it provides a challenge, an enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about God.  God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves. Is such thinking adequate to preserve the special character attributed by religious thought to the emergence not only of life but also of spirit, while avoiding a crude creationism? Only a protracted dialogue will tell.

I think there is a lot of interesting possibilities for intelligent theologians trying to grapple with evolution. Teilhard de Chardin had a very interesting perspective as a priest and scientist. Pope Benedict also has an interesting essay on evolution and Christianity, I forget which book it's in. But theology isn't science (i.e., isn't ruled by the scientific method), and science isn't theology. That's the important point. But when Fundamentalists get involved, they have to reduce everything to a neat pattern, like intelligent design. As if the point of God is to figure him out.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Era Might