Atheists: Is this considered evidence for a Deity? If not, why?

I'm sorry for all the writing. Although I'm Christian (which seems to get ridiculed a lot on this forum), I realize providing evidence for the existence of a Deity doesn't prove it's the Christian God, Yahweh. So when discussing evidence for God, I'll start from a Deist perspective. If... show more I'm sorry for all the writing.

Although I'm Christian (which seems to get ridiculed a lot on this forum), I realize providing evidence for the existence of a Deity doesn't prove it's the Christian God, Yahweh. So when discussing evidence for God, I'll start from a Deist perspective. If you're interested, I'll go on further to show why I believe this Deity is the Christian God.

As an Agnostic, I had the idea that absence of evidence meant evidence of absence. I still hold this view today.

It's pretty implicit given the massive amount of evidence that the Big Bang is true. What most of us tend to forget is that the Big Bang is an effect. Thus, it has a cause. There are several different theories that may explain a naturalistic cause. The Brane Model, the Inflation Model, and the Bubble Model are a few of the most accepted naturalistic Theories. They all fit mathematical constructs that don't violate any laws of physics. What they all lack is empirical evidence. They've made no predictions (at least as far as I'm aware of). Einsteins Theory of Relativity had Mathematical constructs that showed the Universe should be expanding. His Theory was right. All good theories make predictions. Brane, Inflation, and Bubble haven't.

I argrue that the Universes physical constants are so perfectly tuned to suit life, I think a deisgner is the best explantion.

From Wikipedia:

"The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood."

A common response is, "we evolved to fit the Universe, not the other way around." This ignores the fact the are Universes constants are suited not only for life, but for the neccesities that allow it. If the physical constants were changed only by the smallest variable, matter couldn't developed, stars couldn't form, and are elemental diversity woudn't.

Examples of Fine Tuning (I took this from GodandScience):

Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120


You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Although this is a Christian website, it's not YEC. It's a website ran by Scientists of the Christian Faith. It includes naturalistic responses as well:

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/

Here's some Atheist naturalistic responses so you can see who's argrument is better (You can research other websites with Atheist responses on your own as well):

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
http://new.exchristian.net/2011/02/fine-tuned-universe-argument-debunked.html
http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/117-why-is-the-universe-finely-tuned-for-life/

For those who respond with the Multi-verse Hypothesis, keep in mind there's no empirical evidence for it. There's only mathematical constructs that allow for it. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

This isn't the only evidence that took me from Agnosticism to Theism. So if you want more evidence, you can email me at:

icody@asu.edu

Again, I'm really sorry for all the writing.
20 answers 20