Summations Only

Actually a fairly large number of measurable items and ratios appear to be fine-tuned. This is actually a very strong argument for design when the science is properly understood. I intend to do a thread on it. You are correct that most of the universe is inimical to life. The fine tuned argument does not say the universe will be hospitable to life in many places. Most of the fine tuned items have to do with the existence of the universe. Can you tell me the natural cause of the big bang?

Hey Wollysaurus,The answer regarding infinite regression lies in the requirements necessary to be sufficient cause of the big bang.Whatever being caused the big bang was not subject to spacetime. A creator God or Designer would have to exist before spacetime in order to create it. If he or she existed before spacetime, would he or she exist in it or separate from it? Separate, right? If a being is separate from spacetime, then the being must be non-physical and timeless. Timeless means having no beginning.

I don't want to get into the fine tuning argument now. When you understand the science, it is powerful. It is nothing at all like the pothole full of water analogy. Better to just look forward to it.

Certainly! Every cell of every living tree contains tons of information. Cells are incredibly complex and function using photosynthesis, chemical transmitters and biochemical cascades. After a forest fire, many trees are burned and every burned tree lose trillions of these complex cells. The photosynthesis stops, the communication stops. Once living trees are turned into ash. Ashes are not nearly as complex as living cells.

Wollysaurus, the math cannot go past the singularity because math breaks down when it hits infinity. In my post on Message 49, I quote Paul Davies talking about before the singularity. Some might argue that theoretical physics is starting to tread on philosophy, but that has always been true. The simple fact is the singularity is wrongly conceived of by many as something that could exist for billions of years as an infinitely dense and supremely hot period sized dot. It simply isn't true. Heat expands. As soon as the singularity came into existence, it would have to rapidly expand.

This thread began with the goal to show that, contrary to many people’s opinions, Big Bang Theory is compatible with and supports the view a creator God or Designer was involved at the start of the universe. It was not my goal to prove God created the universe, only that the available science is compatible with and supports such a belief. At the very least, people should not see a conflict between science and a belief in a Designer or creator God.While the big bang may not be proof of God’s creation or the work of a Designer, the evidence is strong enough to have convinced many astronomers and physicists to change their views. These scientists did not all join some organized religion, but their views about the possible existence of God and the nature of the universe changed because of the big bang. Here are a few high profile examples:Arthur Eddington, one-time atheist, became agnostic. may have been a life long Quaker.
Paul Davies, one-time atheist, became agnostic.
Allan Sandage, one-time atheist, became a Christian.Here are some of the quotes from mainly atheistic and agnostic scientists:Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me I should like to find a genuine loophole.
Arthur Eddington The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics Nature, vol. 127 (1931) p. 450Arthur Eddington states: The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, p. 178)Allan Sandage was an atheist who became a Christian late in life and said, "If God did not exist, science would have to invent Him to explain what it is discovering at its core."I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing. - Allan Sandage, Winner of the Crawford Prize in Astronomy, spoken before he became a ChristianSpeaking of the big bang, agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow says: That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact. (A scientist caught between two faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow, Christianity Today, August 6, 1982).Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 14).Scientist George Smoot (who led the COBE team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation) says: There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. (quoted in Show me God by Fred Heeren, p. 139)Until the late 1910’s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning. - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.30Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say supernatural) plan. - Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physicsGeorge F.R. Ellis, a well-known cosmologist and one-time co-author with Stephen Hawking wrote: To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself. - George F. R. Ellis, Before the Beginning — Cosmology Explained, p. 97.The late Nobel laureate Paul Dirac stated "God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world."Here are some quotes from scientists stating that faith and science can be compatible:Albert Einstein said My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.In the lecture "Scientists and Their Gods" Henry Schaefer quotes physicist Robert Griffiths: "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."Atheist Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman admitted, "Many scientists do believe in both science and God . . . in a perfectly consistent way."Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics: Science wants to know the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be separated. Many scientists feel there is no place in research for discussion of anything that sounds mystical. But it is unreasonable to think we already know enough about the natural world to be confident about the totality of forces.I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute force. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level God is a matter of taste and definition. - Paul Davies, The Mind of GodI find it difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. And there is certainly no scientific reason why God cannot retain the same relevance in our modern world that He held before we began probing His creation with telescopes, cyclotron and space vehicles. - Wernher von Braun, Creation: Nature’s Design and DesignerAfter close on two centuries of passionate struggles, neither science nor faith has succeeded in discrediting its adversary. On the contrary, it becomes obvious that neither can develop normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of ManEdited by designtheorist, : Strikethrough controversial claim because Arthur Eddington may have been a life-long Quaker.

PaulK,
I see where you are getting hung up. Right now you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time. They cannot both be right. This is called "double-think" and it happens to all of us at one time or another. Either the universe always existed OR it began 13.7 billion years ago.In the 19th and early 20th centuries, people thought the earth always existed. This was the Steady State Theory. Big Bang Theory changed all of that. I wrote a little about the history of Big Bang Theory in the top post. Big Bang Theory has become the standard cosmology. People are working on other theories, but none have really been accepted like Big Bang.

A fire is powerful but not very complex. Vast heat is destructive to order and complexity and reduces everything to ashes. While a burned area of a forest will still be complex, it is much less complex than before the fire because life is much more complex than non-life.Regarding which is more complex, the human or the tree - I have never given the matter any thought. I'm not even sure how someone might quantify it. Trees can be quite large and have trillions of more cells and every cell is amazingly complex. On the other hand, humans have abilities trees do not have - locomotion, cognition, will, consciousness. To be honest, the question does not interest me much. But if I had to guess, I would guess humans are more complex because of the higher level of function.

In that case, you have a greater faith than I.

When I went to bed last night the discussion was pleasant. Obviously there were disagreements but it was a civil discussion. When I came on this morning, I was a little shocked by the vehemence and personal attacks against me in a number of posts.I have not had a chance to determine what caused the change yet because I have not read all the posts yet. Perhaps I misunderstood PaulK and it all started from that misunderstanding. If so, I apologize. I was not attempting to offend.Alternatively, perhaps the increased personal attacks has to do with the quotes I provided last night from cosmologists and astronomers regarding how their conversion to the big bang cosmology effected their world view and their thoughts regarding the possibility of God. If that is what caused the change, that's sad.Anyway, I have a busy day at work today. I hope to find time to read all the comments tonight and find out what I did to offend people.

pressie,
I did not name you as the person making the personal attacks. I don't have a problem with you pointing out any errors you see in my argument. I want that.I only have a minute here because I'm at work. I hope to have more time tonight. Regarding the steady state theory. I have used the terms steady state and static state as interchangeable. Perhaps that was sloppy of me. The static universe theory was Einstein's view because it was the common view at the time.Static universe - WikipediaI am not sure there is any real difference in the way static universe and steady state are defined. I think Fred Hoyle just renamed the old theory, but perhaps I am wrong on that.I will try to address the other issues tonight.

I believe you are describing Hoyle's later position, after the CMB radiation was discovered in 1965. This is the position some came to call "steady bang," although I don't think Hoyle ever used that term. Prior to 1965, Hoyle had publicly defended the Steady State Theory. As far as I know, Hoyle's view was not appreciably different that the Static Universe view described in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier. I could be wrong on that. I will have to do a little more reading to find out.

pressie, by pleading with me to tell the truth you are implying I have not been. It is the same as calling me a liar. I'm not sure who called me a liar, but I consider that a personal attack. I don't see any point in it. If you think I'm wrong, point out the wrong. I truly want to be corrected. But it doesn't help your case to assume the worst about me or plead with me to tell the truth.I may be wrong on occasion (as possibly in the case of thinking static universe and steady state theory were synonyms), but I have never knowingly lied here. What's the point in that?

kbertsche is correct. I simply wrote the wrong word. Sorry I did not check it more closely before submitting the comment. No, I don't conflate these ideas. I do see and use the word "evolution" in its broadest sense, including the evolution of the universe. It does not apply strictly to biology as some people think. pressie, you are conflating my views with the views of young earth creationists. I have never expressed such a view here.

Dirk, complexity is easy to recognize but not as easy to quantify. Just as the vastness of the ocean is easy to recognize but more difficult to quantify. A child can say "The ocean is big!" But ask a scientist how big and he will ask for a research grant.Debating complexity is not the issue right now. Right now we are debating the fact the standard cosmology of the Big Bang supports the idea of a creator God or Designer of the universe.But perhaps it will help you to know how complexity is recognized. Living things are more complex than non-living things (by a LOT!). Complexity requires organization, purpose, function and information.You can also think of a mobile home park. You may not like the look of it, but it does have some organization, purpose and function. Then think of what the mobile home park looks like after a tornado or hurricane has hit it. The organization is gone and the purpose and function are destroyed.