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 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/...

http://new.exchristian.net/2011/02/fine-tuned-univ...

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/117-why-is...

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

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Best answer

    You wrote too much!

    If the universe was designed for l life there will be a lot more life on planets near and far but it's only us in this solar system, only us in this galaxy, son

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Finally, a person who understands science at least as well as I do holding a contrary opinion.

    "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."

    or life as it is presently understood.

    or life as it is presently understood.

    or life as it is presently understood.

    If it were different, would we then say that paradigm was so perfect and unlikely as to suggest a designer? That would be logically flawed and infinitely regressive.

    This argument relies on a well refuted misconception of statistics. Everything is unlikely. No matter what exists, it is against astronomical odds. The fact is "existence exists" (an old Jewish saying). Arguments for god can relate to why anything exists at all(Aquinas), but are invalid when claiming how things exist.

    This is not a Deist argument as the attribute of creator is the Xian god. The god concept does not imply role as creator. Spinoza argues that ascribing this role diminished God (as any finite attribute does), as it is homocentric. The idea of god as a creator works out pretty good for us, and this is just an expression of human arrogance.

  • 9 years ago

    Your argument is actually well worn..

    I can't do better than to agree with "Ask Me About Atheism " in the last couple of sentences. There is no empirical evidence for or against a god. There is no empirical evidence for or against a multiplicity of universes existing in parallel or in series, or both for that matter.

    There are at least sound mathematical arguments that some or one of these is true. Experience has shown that mathematics developed either completely independently of science or sometimes in relation to it has unexpectedly formed the basis of very sound theories.

    Relativity is a glaring example, Einstein's use of non-Euclidian geometry combined with his understanding of electromagnetism gained in his father's dynamo and motor factory to give him the ideas that led to his successful theories. It's been said that others came close to relativity but didn't go quite far enough.

    Another example comes from the theories of symmetry developed in the 1800s that turned out almost a century later to be relevant to particle physics. Third, the invention of calculus by Leibniz and Newton was what made Newton's theories of gravity and mechanics work.

    So apart from anything else, while there is no empirical evidence at present, mathematical hypotheses might show where to look for some, and if some does turn up, tomorrow or in 150 years time, what then?

    By contrast, the existence of gods hasn't even mathematical support.

  • The reinforcement of the fine tuning argument doesn't make any sense. The argument goes that because some constants are fit for life they must have been set for life. The refutation is that this is what we would expect to see if it was the other way around, that life had fitted to the universe. You then counter this by re-stating the same argument ("but look at just how many constants...") which does not deal with this fundamental problem (there are others, "how else would you expect a universe to look?" being one of them) of the fine tuning position.

    The first cause argument can not be used to indicate an intelligent deity as everything we see is concordant with a non-intelligent "cause". Intelligent agencies are unnecessary and unobserved.

    Biologos is a dishonest and awful organisation.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    You are just adding an additional layer to the problem, and one that does not add any useful information. If a God created the universe, what created the God?

    The universe is not fined tuned for life. Prettymuch everywhere we look, things are not well made for life. We are on the only planet in the solar system that has any evidence of life, and the chances of the existence of non-microbial life elsewhere in our solar system are near zilch. The universe is a vast empty expanse of nothingness. That said, the universe is huge, so even though the conditions required for a self replicating chemical reaction(which is what life is),are very rarely encountered, there are enough stars throughout all the galaxies for the correct conditions to be present here, and likely in other spots also.

  • What you've just done is made an elaborate argument from ignorance. No, I'm not saying you're ignorant, that's just what we call that kind of argument. In a nutshell you're saying "I don't know how or why the universe appears to be fine-tuned, so therefore I'm going to believe god did it." That is a logical fallacy. The most we can say right now is "I don't know how or why the universe appears to be fine-tuned."

    Furthermore, when we give possible naturalistic scenarios like multiple universes, you say that we cant use that because "there's no empirical evidence for it". But then you go right ahead an believe that god is the cause, even though there's no empirical evidence for it.

    Feel free to email if you want to elaborate.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    In Science, we don't have "evidence FOR" anything. We only have DISproof. We have evidence that Relativity does not apply in the quantum realm. We have evidence that the "caloric" model of heat transfer has problems.

    Can you in your right mind, expect that trying to DISprove God is not a sin? Did you know that agnostic means "without faith"? You are *not* agnostic. You are looking outside yourself for God.

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

    The constants define a Universe that is fatal to our form of life in just shy of 100% of the Universe, and it appears that DNA-based life started as a viral attack on an established RNA-based life form... one well suited for living near space.

    I argue that life maximizes entropy, and intelligence moreso. This makes both a requirement in the Universe... *regardless* of what the values of the constant might be. As a scientist, I do not look for something I cannot disprove, which would be something I can measure.

    Do not look to the skies for a father-figure, like you had in the crib. If there is a Creator, it is as likely He/She/They wear each of us like a hat.

  • 9 years ago

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

    No...it is not evidence of anything other than the fact that life can exist under the current set of physical constants.

    Fact is, we don't even know if these physical constants COULD be anything else, so arguing "what if they were different" is kinda jumping the gun.

    Second, we do know that under a variety of conditions, including fluctuations in a number of these constants being altered, life could still theoretically exist. Not OUR current form of life, mind you, but a lot of the processes could still function.

    Third, of course it seems fine-tuned...we evolved within this universe. We couldn't evolve to need anything other than what this universe provides. Of course earth, for example seems perfectly tuned for life because we live here, but it's not like we could evolve to breath sulfur on a planet with a low-sulfur atmosphere.

    Saying that the environment we evolved in seems perfectly suited to us is like a puddle looking around at the hole that it is in and saying that it's a miracle the puddle was made so as to perfectly fit the hole.

    Finally, most of the universe is 100% toxic to life as we know it. We live on a limited band on the outer shell of one mid-sized terrestrial planet orbiting one mid-sized star in a universe of 30 sextillion stars. Life, with a few small exceptions, can't live five miles above or below where we do, much less on the moon or in the vacuum of space, and you think the universe is "fine turned for life?"

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Perceived unlikeliness is not evidence of an all powerful intelligent being pulling strings or even starting things.

    Consider the following:

    If just the tiniest thing had been different during the intercourse which conceived your embryo, you (or the person in place of you) could have had a completely different genetic makeup. It's almost as if that intercourse was finely tuned specifically to spawn you, non? Same basic idea as what you just wrote up.

  • JC
    Lv 4
    9 years ago

    We are here BECAUSE those constants are so fined tuned. Any other way and we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to question it. The Universe isn't tailored specifically to us. Either way, I do believe there is a higher power. Even Einstein did, though not in the sense of many Christians.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.