Apologetics for atheists

[ribozyme]

Well, I usually do not find most manifestations of Christian apologetics intellectually stimulating. For example, I usually get bored when I even attempt to read some article This Rock, I usually watch some Pokémon episode to counteract it .

However, I found this page: home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/eft.htm

and I throughly enjoyed reading it. I appreciated how he even corrected some misconceptions about the fine-tuning argument that was conveyed through the literature. See the appendix for some examples of this.

I also do not like how many Christians deny evolution, so this is an interesting excerpt from Robin Collins’ page on wikipedia:

. Unlike many people associated with the Discovery Institute, because of fossil and genetic evidence, Collins accepts the claim that all life on earth came about by a process of evolution (descent with modification) from the first cell.

Does anyone have any resources on fine-tuning that does not read like a Christian apologetics tract? I like his approach, although I am still an atheist (like Ash Ketchum).

 

[Sugar_Ray]

I can’t help you as I’m no expert on evolution. However, as I think you know, the Catholic Church does not deny evolution and I know there are some Catholics on this forum who are extremely knowledgable about the topic.

So if you hang around long enough you’ll end up seeing some interesting threads on evolution.

Best

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

Does anyone have any resources on fine-tuning that does not read like a Christian apologetics tract? I like his approach, although I am still an atheist (like Ash Ketchum).

You might find the articles at these sites of interest:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3731

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2696

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2866

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/sep1992p9_762.html

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I can’t help you as I’m no expert on evolution. However, as I think you know, the Catholic Church does not deny evolution and I know there are some Catholics on this forum who are extremely knowledgable about the topic.

So if you hang around long enough you’ll end up seeing some interesting threads on evolution.

Best

“Fine tuning” is the argument that certain fundamental physical constants, such as the ratio between the graviational and electromagnetic forces, have been set so that complex life can arise.

It has got very little to do with evolution. As a non-physicist, but a biologist, my opinion on fine tuning is not really worth any more thna that of a lay person.

 

[I_A]

Now I don’t want to undermine anything, but recently its been theorized that the universal constants arn’t necessarily universal, although I havn’t seen anything that convinces me of that, i’m not ruling it out. Now this doesn affect mathematical constants like pi, but what it would mean underneath the physical contstants we’re familiar with (mass of an electron for example) there are yet more constants that change the way of the things we thought were our constants. According to traditional theories if the mass of an electron were to change ever so slightly all heck would break loose, yet this data (which is unconvincing to me) seems to insinuate that the mass were to change, something else would have to change in proportion to keep the atoms together.

Google popped up this:
nature.com/news/2006/060417/full/060417-7.html

 

[ribozyme]

Now I don’t want to undermine anything, but recently its been theorized that the universal constants arn’t necessarily universal, although I havn’t seen anything that convinces me of that, i’m not ruling it out. Now this doesn affect mathematical constants like pi, but what it would mean underneath the physical contstants we’re familiar with (mass of an electron for example) there are yet more constants that change the way of the things we thought were our constants. According to traditional theories if the mass of an electron were to change ever so slightly all heck would break loose, yet this data (which is unconvincing to me) seems to insinuate that the mass were to change, something else would have to change in proportion to keep the atoms together.

Google popped up this:
nature.com/news/2006/060417/full/060417-7.html

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the on-line articles in Nature, but I found this too: nature.com/materials/news/news/060427/journal/060417-7.html

It gives me the article too.

We should remember that science is tentative, for example, read the abstract of this: nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6979/abs/428132a.html

 

[Hubriss]

For example, I usually get bored when I even attempt to read some article This Rock, I usually watch some Pokémon episode to counteract it .

-Haha, same here. Don’t watch pokemon anymore though.

vilhjalmur.com/butterfree/yacharizard.jpg

Charizard.

By the way… I thought the universal constant (CC) was scrapped by Einstein. Wasn’t it?

 

[ribozyme]

-Haha, same here. Don’t watch pokemon anymore though.

vilhjalmur.com/butterfree/yacharizard.jpg

Charizard.

By the way… I thought the universal constant (CC) was scrapped by Einstein. Wasn’t it?

I do not know what the “universe constant” is, but are you refering to the cosmological constant, lambda. You are indeed correct that he “scrapped” something. He called the cosmological constant the biggest blunder in his life. However, this number exhibits some MAJOR fine-tuning; it is fined-tuned to the order of 10e120. If it was larger we could not be here to think about it, so it is a mystery regarding its extremely low value. 120 orders of magnitude is inconcievable as there is about 10e80 atoms in the universe. I’m not sure if it 10e80 hadrons, atoms, etc. so if anyone wants to correct me about this number, go ahead.