Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Loiky]

What evidence is/was enough for you to believe in the existence of a creator?

I'm a 30 year old, atheist. Interested in a discussion (call or video) with a Christian.

Hit me up. Cheers!

[jimwalton]

The aspects of the universe and the Earth that exhibit characteristics of being designed. Richard Swinburne writes, "The probability of a hypothesis h on evidence e and background knowledge k is a function of its prior probability (P(h/k)) and its explanatory power (P(e/h.k))/P(e/k). … Even if one considers the intrinsic probability of theism to be low, it is still significantly greater than that of alternative fillings for the hypothesis h. Hence, the occurrence of certain phenomena raises the probability of God’s existence, if and only if it is more probable that those phenomena will occur if is a God than if there is not.

"To show that it is unlikely that the phenomena would occur unless there were a God, one has to show that it is unlikely that there is any complete explanation of the phenomena (e.g., scientific explanation) other than one which involves God’s agency."

The aspects of our universe where it exists with an abundance of extremely narrow parameters that allow the possibility of life is potentially indicative and logically pointing to the plausibility of an intelligent source.

• Cosmic microwave background radiation
• The mass and charge of electrons, protons, and neutrons
• the speed of light
• the rain of protons to neutrons
• the strong nuclear force
• the mass of the sun
• the orbit of the Earth
• the Earth's gravity
• the properties of the carbon atom
• Etc.

Science has shown us that life came about by a process (evolution). But if all the evidence of the probability of evolution is a priori (that is, unless there is a God) unlikely, then (by pattern of logical argument), it is to be inferred that God more plausibly brought them about. And we know from science that the occurrence of life is a rare event in the vast spaces and billions of years of history.

For life to exist as it does, crucial variables must be positioned within a very narrow range. While science can give a partial and incomplete explanation of why the universe is as it is with such narrowly defined constants, theism alone can give a plausible and sufficient explanation of why they are as they are.

Alvin Plantinga says, "So several of the cosmological constants are fine-tuned; how do we turn this into an argument for theism? The basic idea is that such fine-tuning is not at all surprising or improbable on theism: God presumably would want there to be life, and indeed intelligent life with which (whom) to communicate and share love. Of course this life could take many different forms (indeed, perhaps it has taken many forms). But it doesn’t seem at all improbable that God would want to create life, both human life and life of other sorts, and if he wanted to created human life in a universe at all like ours, he would have been obliged to fine-tune the constants. On the other hand, on the atheistic hypothesis according to which these constants have their values by chance (that is, those values are not the result of anyone’s choice or intention) it is exceedingly improbable that they would be fine-tuned for life. This seems to offer support for theism: given theism, fine-tuning is not at all improbable; given atheism, it is; therefore theism is to be preferred to atheism."

In addition, why is the world so significantly describable by mathematical structures? Why should that be so, by pure development)? Nature reflects mathematical precision so much so that mathematics is the language of nature. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. Eugene Wigner spoke of the "unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in the natural sciences." Even Pythagoras said the universe is made of numbers. The universe might have been chaotic, but instead it is governed by math, laws, and regularities. This is striking. When we see order, regularity and predictability, we have to consider whether it's wiser to infer that such order and regularity came by way of chances and randomness, or whether it's more reasonable to infer that such order and regularity came from an intelligent, orderly source. What hypothesis is a better explanation?

We know the mathematical value of these constants are not determined by the law of nature. We have 3 choices: physical necessity, chance, or design. We know that it's not due to physical necessity. Physical necessity would require that the constants must have these values, which we know is not true. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants.

When weighing, then, chance vs. design, an intelligent source is the more reasonable plausibility. Theorists recognize that the odds against fine-tuning are simply insurmountable unless one is ready to embrace a speculative hypothesis of multiverses, but even that doesn't explain that our universe is fine-tuned for life.

Paul Davies, theoretical physicist at Cambridge, said, "It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe…has been carefully thought out. … The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design."

Plantinga, again: "Perhaps you will claim that no matter how the world had been, it would have been describable by mathematics of some kind or other. Perhaps so; but what is unreasonable, in Wigner's terms, is that the sort of mathematics effective in science is extremely challenging mathematics, though still such that we human beings can grasp and use it (if only after considerable effort). It's not just atomless gunk with nothing happening, or a melange of kaleidoscope variety and succession with no rhyme or reason or patters, or surface variety and chaos and unpredictability. Though all of those might have been possible, instead we have a world that is mathematically describable in terms of fascinating underlying mathematical structures of astounding complexity but also deep simplicity. That mathematics of this sort should be applicable to the world is indeed astounding. It is also properly thought of as unreasonable, in the sense that from a naturalistic perspective it would be wholly unreasonable to expect this sort of mathematics to be useful in describing our world. It makes eminently good sense from the perspective of theism, however. Science is a splendid achievement, and much of its splendor depends upon mathematics being applicable to the world in such a way that it is both accessible to us but also offers a challenge of a higher order. According to theism, God creates human beings in his image, a crucial component of which is the ability to know worthwhile and important things about our world. Science with its mathematical emphasis is a prime example of this image in us: it is both simple and complex, requiring our simple observations as well as our very best efforts, both as communities and individuals, and it delivers magnificent results. All of this seems wholly appropriate from a theistic point of view; as Paul Dirac, who came up with an influential formulation of quantum theory, put it, 'God is a mathematicians of a very high order and he used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.' So here we have another manifestation of deep concord between science and theistic religion: the way in which mathematics is applicable to the universe."

This is but one argument of several.

[Tommy Boy]

If earth had a methane atmosphere, life would breathe methane. As indeed it does on earth in caves beneath the ocean.

[jimwalton]

OK, can't disagree with that, except that it's speculative. But what's your point? As far as we know, water environments are more favorable to life (of any sort) than liquid methane habitable zones. As far as we know, there are oceanic organisms that eat methane, but you'll have to alert me to anything that survives by breathing methane.

So what's your point pertaining to the evidence I presented that leads me to believe in the existence of a creator?

[Dodd]

I really like this post, it's very well-thought out (assuming you didn't copy it from somewhere!). I don't agree with the reasoning or conclusion (I think your probabilistic approach is rather too subjective), but I do appreciate how rigorous you are.

[jimwalton]

Thank you. I didn't copy it from anywhere, except where I acknowledged quotes. It's my own work based on research.

> I think your probabilistic approach is rather too subjective

In such a venture we have to use abductive reasoning: making observations in an area that doesn't yield to certainty or even necessarily probability, and so we look to plausibility. Inference to the best explanation. So we look at the facts before us, evaluate the evidences, and hypothesize what explanation best fits the facts. We look at probability, coherence, logic, avoidance of contradictions, and Occam's Razor (what is the simplest explanation that fits all the data?). In other words, I am considering data, evidence, probabilities, plausibilities, for the best explanatory power.

In that case, theism has the best explanatory power. According to Occam's Razor, theism also has great simplicity of explanation.

If you think that science has a more plausible and complete explanation for why things are as they are, I'd be pleased to read it and we can talk.

[Tommy Boy]

It's not speculative. It's current fact. It's just a piece of evolutionary trivia that theists never account for, often because they ae unaware of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph So it's not speculative at all. It's reality. The point is far more important. The universe is not fine tuned for us, coronavirus would, or should, give that instruction. We are tuned for the universe and imperfectly at that. The evidence of this, and all evidence available points to no creator whilst zero evidence for a creator exists and no theist in history has ever been able to articulate what they even mean by "a creator". Case is closed.

[jimwalton]

> It's not speculative. It's current fact ... it's not speculative at all. It's reality.

OK, I'm fine with that. It doesn't change anything.


> The universe is not fine tuned for us, coronavirus would, or should, give that instruction.

The fine tuning of the universe doesn't abrogate that the universe and the world are dynamic environments, not static. Dynamism is essential for life. It's what allowed earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. It's what allows our bodies to generate new blood vessels after injury, to allow our brains to find new routes after damage, and even to allow us to think creatively. Without such dynamism, we would not have survived and the planet would blow like a cork.

Part of this dynamism is evolution via natural selection and genetic mutation, of which the corona virus world is a part. Corona virus is not a defeater for fine tuning, but another factor of our dynamic environment that is necessary for life. Viruses have their advantages and disadvantages as part of the ecosystem.

> Case is closed.

Not even close. Nothing is so simple. Viruses are one of the more ingenious elements at work at the edge of life. They both foster and destroy, infuse and modify. Viruses are often what astrologers are looking for as life forms on other planets because of their abilities to survive in less-than-ideal environments, as well as to modify as necessary to continue on. Fantastic little things. And you think that proves there's no creator? You to need to think more deeply, friend.

> and no theist in history has ever been able to articulate what they even mean by "a creator"

Well, thank you for asking. The Creator is the timeless cosmological source, the knowledgeable, personal, and purposeful designer, the powerful agent, and the guide of all that we see in the natural world.

[Tommy Boy]

A dynamic environment allows us to generate new blood vessels? OK. I'd been labouring under the impression that was angiogenesis in a genetic response to hypoxia. You learn new things every day.

A timeless cosmological source? Interesting. Explain timelessness. Then we can move to "cosmological".

[jimwalton]

> A dynamic environment allows us to generate new blood vessels? OK. I'd been labouring under the impression that was angiogenesis in a genetic response to hypoxia. You learn new things every day

Our circulatory system is a beneficial chaotic system. There is strong scientific evidence to conclude that dynamical systems are beneficial to life. The heart can recover from occasion arrhythmias and even blockages by creating new patterns. It's good to learn new things every day.

> A timeless cosmological source? Interesting. Explain timelessness.

Physicists speculate that before the Big Bang there was no time. In Stephen Hawking's lecture, "The Beginning of Time," he theorizes that the density of the singularity before the Bang would have been infinite, and that time may not have existed. He explained in an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, where he likened the space-time dimensions of the Big Bang to the South Pole. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang," he said.

Now, then, we all know that nothing spontaneous generates out of nonexistence, causing its own generation. So there must have been something before the Big Bang, which leads us to a timeless first cause.