my favorite Argument for Intelligent Design + Book recommendations (edited)
Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is nature so orderly? The remarkable fine-tuning of life in our world and the Universe is one of my favorite Arguments for Intelligent Design in nature. This blog post will cover the fine-tuning Argument and two objectives, and recommend books for those interested in more information. Let's first define our terms exactly. What is the fine-tuning argument?
From The Fine-Tuning Argument: Exploring the Improbability of Our Existence "The Fine-Tuning Argument, to be abbreviated by FTA in what follows, claims that the present Universe (including the laws that govern it and the initial conditions from which it has evolved) permits life only because these laws and conditions take a very special form, small changes in which would make life impossible."Now, how many conditions have to be just right to get life? We don't know exactly how many.
Understanding Evolution.org says, "Life as we know it requires biogenic elements, a source of energy, liquid water, and a suitable, reasonably stable environment for evolution to take place."
What are biogenetic Elements? The elements that are necessary for basic life processes. Biogenic elements include, but are not limited to, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus." From NASA's website (astrobiology.nasa.gov/educationanimals), "Animals need food to live and grow. They obtain their food from plants or other animals. Plants need water and light to live and grow." ( sounds like a Goldilocks zone) AKA The Habitable Zone from Google's summary "is the region around a star where a planet could potentially support liquid water on its surface, which is considered a key requirement for life as we know it. It's the "just right" temperature range for life to potentially thrive. It sounds all well and good, but there are three objections. Three answers
objection #1: The Anthropic Principle: what is it? It's a philosophical and scientific concept suggesting that the universe's properties must allow for the existence of observers. There are two kinds: weak and strong . From Richard Dawkins he is a British evolutionary biologist, zoologist, science communicator and author.[
“And the beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here.”
Response from William Lang Craig: "(/kreɪɡ/;[2] born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and theologian.[ the example of a man dressed and ready for a firing squad. He goes out, his hands are bound, and his eyes are covered, so he doesn’t have to look at the firing squad. In the firing squad, some people hate him. They are marksmen. There is one guy with a bazooka. A big explosion, there's a lot of smoke. But when the smoke clears, the guy is still standing there.
His blindfold is gone; his hands are not tied behind his back. He was okay. He didn’t have a scratch on him. The (Weak) Anthropic Principle would correspond to the guy in front of the firing squad shrugging his shoulders and saying, “You know what? It happened. I don’t know why, but it did happen. I don’t have to worry about that, because I’m here. And that’s proof that it happened.” (https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/are-we-just-biased-thinking-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life/) ("Brainstorm topics for my blog")
Objection #2: We live in a multiverse.
Now, what is a multiverse definition from Google's AI?
"A hypothetical concept suggesting the existence of multiple universes, possibly including our own. A proponent well-known by many is Stephen Hawking, who suggested that our universe might be one of many, but not an infinite and complex fractal structure as traditionally envisioned. Now there are at least two Counterobjections. Counter-objection is that the multiverse is not scientific. Why? It's unfalsifiable, meaning it describes a statement, hypothesis, or theory that cannot be tested or proven incorrect through any conceivable evidence or experiment.
So is this all proof of A God? It is a pointer or a step to the divine mind, I think it's not absolute proof now, why do I say this? Because if God created everything, including the universe, time, logic, matter, and science itself, he cannot be disproven or proven within science alone, does Harry Potter in his story prove or disprove his creator, the author JK Rowling? No, of course not! I believe that God is more subtle than that. He wants to have a relationship with us. He is more akin to a friend who wants to get to know you, and he loves you more than you could imagine. Reasonable people can disagree over design in nature, but as Christians, we are all called to love those with whom we disagree
Recommended books: The Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries Revealing the Mind Behind the Universe
Science and the Mind of the Maker: What the Conversation Between Faith and Science Reveals About God
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe
The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God
Cited: Landsman, K. (2016). *The Fine-Tuning Argument: Exploring the Improbability of Our Existence*. In: Landsman, K., van Wolde, E. (eds) *The Challenge of Chance*. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_6
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/education/alp/if-a-planet-can-have-life/
Grammarly contributed to this text by responding to these AI prompts:
Prompts created by Grammarly
- "Improve it"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#cite_note-3
- "Shorten it"
Comments
Post a Comment