Evidence of a Creator from Physics??

Question

Evidence from physics… The universe is finely tuned on a razor’s edge in a way that defies mere chance… and points powerfully and is best explained by the existence of a creator.
The force of gravity is finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree so that life can exist. What physicists have determined is the force of gravity could have been set over a wide range of possibilities … It didn’t have to be where it is. It could have been at anything… in fact, they have calculated that the force of gravity could have been set on a ruler that stretched billions of light years across the universe, in one inch increments. That represents what setting gravity could have been. But if you adjusted gravity by just one inch compared to the width of the universe intelligent life would be impossible. It would be catastrophic. Was that an accident? Did that just happen by chance?
Cosmological Constant or the Energy Density of Space.

Basically, the universe has to be exactly right or the universe falls apart. How precise? Scientists had found that the Cosmological Constant is finely tuned to ONE PART in a hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion. One Part in a hundred million billion-with 5 billions.
If you add the Cosmological Constant and Gravity. The fine tuning would be to a precision of ONE PART in a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Or one atom (it takes a million atoms lined up to equal the width of one human hair) compared to the entire human universe.
For instance. The strong nuclear force. This is the force that binds the nuclei of atoms together. If you were to decrease the strong nuclear force by just one part in ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion. All we would have in the universe is hydrogen. No intelligent life would be possible.

Or… unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of just one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion then the galaxies and stars and planets could never have formed. That would be like stacking up a bunch of dimes, 226 thousand miles to the moon and then keep doing that pile after pile until you have all of North America piled up in dimes to the moon and you choose one dime at random, paint it red…. Mix up all of the dimes… blindfold someone and have them try to reach out and pull out one dime… it would have to be that dime to be equivalent. In other words his chances would be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion.

That’s a mind blowing argument for the existence a creator that set the parameters exactly right so that life could exist, he created a habitat for the people that he eventually created.

“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” – MIT Physicist, Vera Kistiakowski

How do atheists avoid this?

“Today, the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. Those who wish to oppose it have no testable theory to marshal, only speculations about unseen universes spun from fertile imaginations… Ironically, the picture of the universe given to us by the most advance science is closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than anything offered by science since Copemicus.” –Former atheist educated at Harvard University and a Professor at Georgetown University-Patrick Glynn

It is now the atheist who has to maintain the faith, despite all of the overwhelming evidence for the contrary, that the universe did NOT have a beginning but is in some inexplicable way, eternal after all. Now it is the Christian who can stand confidently in Biblical truth knowing that it’s in line with mainstream Astro-Physics and Cosmology

People don’t want to believe it because they don’t want to deny themselves. Jesus makes certain claims on our lives and people don’t want anyone else running the show but them.

Answer 1

The universe with all its creations, both animate and inanimate, has a flawless design, unique systems, and an ordered balance that provide all the conditions necessary for living things to survive. Discoveries, especially those made in the 20th and 21st centuries, have shown that the flawless design of the universe is clearly the work of a supreme intelligence. It is God, with His supreme intelligence, limitless knowledge and eternal power, Who created the universe. But this fact, established with clear proofs by 20th-century science, is ignored by those who have adopted the Darwinist-Materialist philosophy. Materialists may claim that the universe is the product of chance and chaos, but when we examine the flawless systems that functioned in forming the universe, not to mention the balance and harmony existing among its living things, we clearly see that it cannot be the product of chance.

In The Mysterious Universe, the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos:
A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.

Answer 2

Telling us what might have been but is not is no evidence for a Supreme creator. If my dad's sperm, one out of thousands, had not met the exact egg my mother ovulated, one out of several thousand in her ovaries, I would have been a boy, or a blonde, or a Downs Syndrome child, or no viable offspring at all! Of all the sperm and egg possibilities, it's a million bilion trillion quadrillion~ chance I wouldn't have been born who I am.

It MUST be a supreme creator~!!

...or, you know, chance.

Science does not fall solely upon aetheists, but rather upon those who can see the realm of possible truths beyond the limited scope of a supreme god. Remember, throuhout human history, gods and godesses have been created by more primitive people who lacked the ability to explain their surroundings with any degree of certainty. It was a way of comforting them, a way of explaining what was otherwise unexplainable. Science seeks to explain it in a way that is not merely human nature trying to explain its own reason for existence.

Science seeks to explain what religion does not. For example, a common argument, one you yourself touched upon, is that there must be a supreme creator because the universe must have started somewhere, at sometime. It cannot e infinite. Why, you say? Because nothing in the universe is infinite?

Then what created God? Surely, if it is not possible for the world to have always been here in some form or another, it is also not possible for God to have not alway been here.

Nor is it up to the aetheist to "maintain the faith". The very definition of an aetheist is that they have no faith. Science is not about faith. It's about seeking and learning and growing. That's why scientists call what they learn "theories" and "hypothesees" before they have perfect, concrete proof that what they have discovered is universal law. Faith, by definition, is believing something without proper evidence to back it up. Scientists have that with theories, you have that with your Bible (Which, by the way, was written over time by different hands, well after the stories it tells about Jesus and the like, and has numerus contradictions within its pages). But you'll note who continues to try to prove their "faith" and who doesn't. Scientists can back up what they discover, and still keep in the realm of remembering we are but human and thus cannot understand everything. What about you?

Answer 3

The facts that you have presented in your questions can be used as an argument for the other side as well. Life as we know it had to evolve in a way consistent with the laws of nature. If the laws of nature were different, likely some other form of life would have evolved. But to use that as evidence of God is flimsy at best in my mind. The same can be held for gravity. But where I object to your statement is when you talk about how you talk about how gravity is set. Yes, I believe that it happened by chance. But I believe the EXACT opposite of what you are stating: that life exists as we know it BECAUSE of these rules, not that the rules exist because they were set up that way for life to exist.

Answer 4

I do not deny the intricasies contained in our universe. I just deny the Judeo-Christian teachings that there is an omnipotent God who controls us till this day. So in that way I do not consider myself an atheist. I just find most religions to be manmade concepts that were used by ancient man to explain natural phenomena. Our modern knowledge has already debunked many of these myths. It is just that some of them have been worded where they cannot possibly be debunked.

Answer 5

just b/c the life is finly balenced and could not exsist in any other seting if things were changed doesn't prove there is a god. it just proves things have to be a certain way for life to keep going if you are going in to physics you have ot also consider other options such as the idea that there are mutli dementions where different possable life exsit the other reason you see life as it is is b/c other they other verions of life couldn't be possbale b/c they don't make the things that sustain life you should read hawkin's book and it sounds liek you have already but I disagree that it proves theres a god

Answer 6

It takes more faith to believe the complexity and precision that the universe has came by chance then it does to believe that an intelligent designer (God) created the heavens and the earth.

Answer 7

Ok. Every person with intelligence knows that it has to be fine tuned to exist. If it didn't meet the necessary requirements of existence it wouldn't exist. How is this proof? It's only proof of natural selection. Every possible combination that did not favor prolonged existence ceased to exist.

Answer 8

You say that if gravity used to be just a little weaker planets would not type. Well if that used to be actual you would not have been right here to factor that out. Maybe in another universes the gravity is slightly weaker however on the grounds that of that not anything can type with a view to become aware of it.

Answer 9

Using bad science and circular logic prove nothing. The only proper use of science is to describe the universe as it is. Not to use some parts to support a preconceived notion

Answer 10

There are lots of things that had a very small chance of happenig, but just because something is unlikely, does not mean that it is impossible. For example, if I were to tell you to pick a number from 1 to 1,000, chances are that I'll guess wrong. However, it's not impossible for me to guess correctly.