The Anthropic Principle: Evidence from the Big Bang
Another strong argument for the existence of God is known as the Anthropic Principle which argues the fundamental constants observed in the Universe are finely-tuned to allow the Universe and life as we know it to exist.
Dr. William Lane Craig puts it this way:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Since the evidence for this argument is so numerous and powerful, I'll present each in a separate post. In fact, Antony Flew, former champion of atheistic philosophy, was convinced by these arguments (see comments).
Consider:
If the Big Bang was slightly too weak, the expanding matter would have collapsed back in on itself preventing the formation or stars and planets - much less planets suitable for life. The density of the Universe necessary to prevent a recollapse of the Universe is known as critical density.
On the other hand, if the enregy of the Big Bang was slightly too strong, the expanding volume of space would have been to fast preventing the formation of stars and planets.
Thus, the expanding matter from the energy of the Big Bang compared to the expanding volume of space must have been extremely balanced or the Universe would not have formed at all. Physicist John Polkinghorne determined this extremely fine balance must have been within one in 10^60 - equivalent to hitting an inch-wide target at the farthest reaches of the observable universe from Earth.
From this, it seems far more reasonable to believe this balance was achieved not by chance, but by intent (design).
posted by Roy Clemmons @ 7:35 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Note: If the string/brane theorists are correct, and we exist in a 12+ dimensional space-time, there are very likely extra constants not yet discovered that are also mysteriously fine-tuned reducing the rationality of believing in a randomly caused Universe.
From http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.
HABERMAS: So you like arguments such as those that proceed from big bang cosmology and fine tuning arguments?
FLEW: Yes.
Let me suggest a counter proposal. If the brane theorists are correct, there may be a vast number of multi-dimensional universes stacked closely together like philo dough in a Turkish pastry. Each of the universes could very well have its own set of parameters. Perhaps in only a few of them could matter exist. Perhaps in only a few of those could life exist. We just happen to be living in one of those special few. So what looks to us like a miracle of design could simply be random chance.
> Consider:
>
> If the Big Bang was slightly too weak,...
>
> On the other hand, if the enregy of the
> Big Bang was slightly too strong,...
I'll jump in on this one. The above argument can't prove that the universe was fine tuned if there is only a single option that results in observed reality. There must be multiple opportunities for observed reality (which we can verify) and a clear indication that the most optimal one is in effect for there to be proof that a guiding hand exists. Otherwise, there were simply thousands of bangs with random parameters and we exist in the only one that supports life. Our challenge is to analyze existence from inside this bottle with no apriori knowledge of other bottles.
Look for "The Destropic Principle"
Essnetially, the Destropic Principle asserts that every universe is probable and there's nothing special about life. In my opinion, Part 3 of William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith" and Gerald Schroder's book, "The Science of God" reveal the illogical foundation and assumptions of the Destropc Principle.
What the Antropic Principle proposes is no other thing that the universe is how it is, because it is the only way it could have been (or at least one of many other). Because if it wouldnt be that way, no humans would be there asking themselves why the universe is how it is (just like could be happening right now in other non-life supporting parallel universes). The constants of nature are as they are, and the critical density has been as it has because it was the only way. It could have been another way but you wouldnt be there asking, so you can only live in an universe wich is this way. That is what the antropic principle says, it is in no way an argument in favour of the existence of god, rather the opposite, i dont know how it coul have been so mislead. Peace
Your obejction is commonly made but indicates a misunderstanding of the argument.
Imagine you are standing before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen with all their rifles pointed at you. When the command to fire is made, you hear the shots fire and expect to be hit. But, you observe that all 100 trained marksmen have missed! Do you conclude, "Well, I shouldn't surpised at the improbability they all missed, because, otherwise, I wouldn't be here to observe it. The fact I am still alive requires no further explanation."
OR do you reason thusly,"Due to the highly unlikely probability that all 100 trained marksmen completly missed me, I am shocked! There must be something more than chance involved."
Just because we are able to detect and observe natural constants is not surprising. What IS surprising is that life-permitting natural constants exist in the first place!
Their precision is so
overwhelmingly improbable, it's not unreasonable to propose that something else besides chance is involved.
Your objection also rests on the existence on parallel universes.
First, there is NO experimental evidence that parallel universes exist. It is highly controversial. Thus, using this a a basis for your objection severely weakens it.
Second, even given the existence of parallel universes, life permitting universe are far more unlikely than a non-life permitting universe. For a thorough examination of this issue, see: Part 3 of Carig's book, "Reasonable Faith."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home