Physical Necessity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonyrey

Guest
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life – every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Click to expand...
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
Click to expand...
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces – were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction – by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 – then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Click to expand...
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Click to expand...
I might have added only that the fine-tuning extends all the way from the most massive scale (the universe) down to the very finest (the proteins that comprise the parts of molecular machines that operate in the cell and make life possible). For the latter, see Chapter 10 of Darwin’s Doubt, where Stephen Meyer draws on Doug Axe’s work.
Click to expand...
Eric Metaxas frames the question well, “At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?” Of course for committed partisans of materialism, the answer is: never. It’s never fair. It can never be admitted, no matter what.
Click to expand...
It would be fair to dismiss those people, whose minds are so tightly sealed against the evidence, were it not for the fact that their influence in popular and scientific culture is so enormous. An article like this, even in the Wall Street Journal, that puts the question so plainly, is a triumph.
Click to expand...
evolutionnews.org/2014/12/universe_planet092391.html
What are your views?
 
It is not necessarily fair to blame scientists for not crediting intelligence of God for knowing and speaking creation.

When I look at the scientists today, from Hawking to the one with the Christmas Tweet (can’t think of his name, but I always watch him on Discovery or PBS if I have the chance), I think to myself that these have not had the Grace to also know the Sacramental God, his Church, nor learn from the Catholic teachers who could teach them correctly in parallel with their scientific study and work.

They have the teachings of protestors to the Catholic Faith, who have stripped it of its full Sacramental Presence and understanding, just as they have stripped meaning and books from the intended Scriptures of God. So the God they say is not real, the intelligence of Creation they say is not real, is not the God nor the intelligent Creator we know. We know a different God than the God they deny. The God that Hawking would deny is not the God we know. We have to realize this, seriously, that the God we know is not known outside the Catholic Church - I do not think that we understand how unique we are in the world and how incumbent it is upon us to know our God clearly, experience him Sacramentally and understand him and then proclaim him as we know him.
 
John_Martin said:
When I look at the scientists today, from Hawking to the one with the Christmas Tweet (can’t think of his name, but I always watch him on Discovery or PBS if I have the chance), I think to myself that these have not had the Grace to also know the Sacramental God, his Church, nor learn from the Catholic teachers who could teach them correctly in parallel with their scientific study and work.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize there are absolutely no Catholic scientists on the planet. Who knew. 🙂
 
Science cannot answer “why” questions, only how.

Which doesn’t stop some from trying.

But unless a whole new science is discovered, spirituality will remain outside it’s purview.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Science cannot answer “why” questions, only how.

Which doesn’t stop some from trying.

But unless a whole new science is discovered, spirituality will remain outside it’s purview.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I have a question, please.

The primary principle of natural science is to observe without prejudice. That is the method used in gathering all kinds of physical evidence which then is analytically tested and hypotheses are formed etc.

I wonder – Does one have to be a non-scientist in order to observe the differences between physical species and then to observe that the physical human species is peerless?
 
grannymh said:
I have a question, please.

The primary principle of natural science is to observe without prejudice. That is the method used in gathering all kinds of physical evidence which then is analytically tested and hypotheses are formed etc.

I wonder – Does one have to be a non-scientist in order to observe the differences between physical species and then to observe that the physical human species is peerless?
Click to expand...
“Peerless” in what sense?

Our dear old human bodies, as amazing and precious as they are to their minds, are excelled in every physical category by some other form of life.

We are physically unique only in that our heads hold a conscious mind.

And some biologists working with apes or cetaceans would deny our uniqueness even in that area.

ICXC NIKA.
 
GEddie said:
“Peerless” in what sense?

Our dear old human bodies, as amazing and precious as they are to their minds, are excelled in every physical category by some other form of life.

We are physically unique only in that our heads hold a conscious mind.

And some biologists working with apes or cetaceans would deny our uniqueness even in that area.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply.

Coincidentally, I am reading about the philosophical approach to “species”. As I always thought that it is obvious that our species is peerless, (Genesis 1: 26-27) I will simply stop for a bit and look further at what I am reading.
 
tonyrey said:
evolutionnews.org/2014/12/universe_planet092391.html
What are your views?
Click to expand...
The odds against life existing in this Universe are very small, but the Universe itself is so enormous, it’d be more amazing if life didn’t spring up somewhere.

Apart from that, our planet isn’t exactly designed to make our survival easy. We’ve had to do a lot of adjusting to make it this far. Ask yourself how long you’d last if suddenly the human race uninvented clothes and buildings to live inside. Most of the planet is uninhabitable already. Now take away our creature comforts. When you’re lucky enough to live indoors, with access to heat or AC, with WiFi, and with pizza delivery in under 30 minutes, it’s hard to take seriously these claims that our planet is “fine-tuned” for our benefit.
 
GEddie said:
Science cannot answer “why” questions, only how.

Which doesn’t stop some from trying.

But unless a whole new science is discovered, spirituality will remain outside it’s purview.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
👍

Science is not the enemy.
 
John_Martin said:
It is not necessarily fair to blame scientists for not crediting intelligence of God for knowing and speaking creation.

When I look at the scientists today, from Hawking to the one with the Christmas Tweet (can’t think of his name, but I always watch him on Discovery or PBS if I have the chance), I think to myself that these have not had the Grace to also know the Sacramental God, his Church, nor learn from the Catholic teachers who could teach them correctly in parallel with their scientific study and work.

They have the teachings of protestors to the Catholic Faith, who have stripped it of its full Sacramental Presence and understanding, just as they have stripped meaning and books from the intended Scriptures of God. So the God they say is not real, the intelligence of Creation they say is not real, is not the God nor the intelligent Creator we know. We know a different God than the God they deny. The God that Hawking would deny is not the God we know. We have to realize this, seriously, that the God we know is not known outside the Catholic Church - I do not think that we understand how unique we are in the world and how incumbent it is upon us to know our God clearly, experience him Sacramentally and understand him and then proclaim him as we know him.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:Life in secular society is not conducive to belief in spiritual reality.
 
GEddie said:
Science cannot answer “why” questions, only how.

Which doesn’t stop some from trying.

But unless a whole new science is discovered, spirituality will remain outside it’s purview.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Scientific method does not apply to mind, hence spirituality since mind is the faculty and knowledge, science for example, is the utility.
 
GEddie said:
Science cannot answer “why” questions, only how.

Which doesn’t stop some from trying.

But unless a whole new science is discovered, spirituality will remain outside it’s purview.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I agree, Eddie. Some scientists even believe reasons can be reduced to causes!
 
AyJSimon said:
The odds against life existing in this Universe are very small, but the Universe itself is so enormous, it’d be more amazing if life didn’t spring up somewhere.
Click to expand...
You are implying that the size of the universe alone is a good reason to believe life is inevitable!
Apart from that, our planet isn’t exactly designed to make our survival easy. We’ve had to do a lot of adjusting to make it this far. Ask yourself how long you’d last if suddenly the human race uninvented clothes and buildings to live inside. Most of the planet is uninhabitable already. Now take away our creature comforts. When you’re lucky enough to live indoors, with access to heat or AC, with WiFi, and with pizza delivery in under 30 minutes, it’s hard to take seriously these claims that our planet is “fine-tuned” for our benefit.
Click to expand...
  1. The fact that life has not only survived for nearly four billion years in such a hostile environment but also developed on this planet to such an incredible extent makes it very difficult to believe it is entirely fortuitous - especially considering that monocellular organisms have the greatest survival value. Simplicity is an asset and complexity a disadvantage, as we see from the continued presence of amoeba and the extinction of dinosaurs.
  2. There is also the enormous problem of explaining how rational persons have been produced by mindless things. It amounts to believing thought is derived from dust! That must be the greatest miracle that has ever occurred throughout the entire history of the universe…
  3. No reasonable person behaves as if everything is dominated by physical necessity. If we were compelled to reach** all **our conclusions without any choice in the matter they would be untrustworthy. Moreover biological robots have no right to life - or any other rights for that matter. Reasons would be reduced to causes and persons to particles. In other words, the Blind Goddess is a hopelessly inadequate explanation…
 
Bahman said:
Scientific method does not apply to mind, hence spirituality since mind is the faculty and knowledge, science for example, is the utility.
Click to expand...
Bravo! Well said! I like the rhyming antithesis. 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
You are implying that the size of the universe alone is a good reason to believe life is inevitable!
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say it’s inevitable. I would just suggest it’s not nearly as surprising as some make it out to be. It’s like if one person played the lottery once a week, and the odds of a jackpot were 1 in 300 million. That person isn’t mathematically certain to ever win, but if you give it enough time, they probably will. “Enough time,” in this hypothetical could easily be millions of years, but that doesn’t really change the point. If you have the proper perspective on time, and size, then luck stops looking like an absurd explanation.
  1. The fact that life has not only survived but also developed on this planet for nearly four billion years in such a hostile environment makes it very difficult to believe it is an entirely fortuitous event - especially considering that monocellular organisms have the greatest survival value.
Click to expand...
Right, and there are places on Earth where humans could probably survive without the benefits of clothing or structures to shield us from the elements. But there are many, many more places on Earth where they couldn’t. Nobody who’s ever found themselves stuck at the South Pole, or at the bottom of an ocean, has thought to remark at just how “fine-tuned” the Earth is for supporting human life.
  1. There is also the enormous problem of explaining how rational persons have been produced by mindless things. It amounts to believing thought is derived from dust! That must be the greatest miracle that has ever occurred…
Click to expand...
Miracles are, by definition, results from the suspension of the laws of nature. Given that we don’t yet know all the relevant laws of nature, it would overstepping to assume that an un-guided process couldn’t ultimately result in the rise of rational, conscious minds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top