format_quote Originally Posted by
Pygoscelis
First, we DON'T know for sure that the universe hasn't always been.
).
To explain religion/faith using logical deduction or induction is a bit short in tools since logic is not the only variable that governs human system.
Some of the smartest people in history of mankind mentioned about the anthropic principle. The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common–these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life.
The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, for example:
Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, “stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.”
The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example.
A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons–yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.
If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is–roughly twice the mass of an electron–then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it–and to life.
The very nature of water–so vital to life–is something of a mystery. Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.
The synthesis of carbon–the vital core of all organic molecules–on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12–allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.
The fact that we are living and can observe the universe, implies that the fundamental constants must be “just right” to produce life. There is an element of circular reasoning here, because if the constants were not “just right”, we would not be here to observe the universe. However, the fact is that the universe does not seem to be a random or chance event.”
It would be hard not to say there’s involvement of SuperBeing at work during creation to get “just right” of the fundamental constants.
The interesting part, when you manage to carry a cup full of hot coffe from downstair without a spill, there is no logic involved. The robotic movement to imprinting simple human task (like bringing hot coffe without a drop) will require complex calculations (the gravity, the adjustment, the angle of cup relative to legs movement etc)…yet, we don’t do any arithmetics….our instincts or feeling are more than suitable to do the task with simple practice…
Logic, instinct, feeling and other variables are accountable for human and God relationship. Will we ever know about the truth of God, religion, and faith?
It’s hard to disagree that science still is in infancy stage relative to the age of universe. But, science has found some of the laws that govern the universe. By definition, the scientific laws, given the right parameters, are invariants…independent with the time frame. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, the scientific laws work just the same. The future finding will not affect the current scientific laws…the future scientific finding will only determine the faith of scientific theories. Hence, only few are recognized as Scientific laws among the list of scientific theories that still are characterized by the await of fail or prevail.
Stephen Hawking, together with Brandon Carter and other colleagues, discovered that an extremely delicate balance does exist in nature. For instance, if the strong force that acts on the quarks, neutrons, and protons of the atomic nucleus were just slightly weaker, hydrogen would be the only stable element. No other elements could exist…No carbon, no oxygen etc, hence no human or life as we know it (most of life are RNA or DNA based which is combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur, and other elements in the chart).
If the constant of gravity were stronger–only 10^25 times less powerful than the strong nuclear force instead of 10^38 times weaker–our universe would be small and swift. The average star would have only 10^-12 times the mass of the sun and could exist for just about a year, hardly time for complex biological phenomena, such as human, to develop.
The list of this “just right” proportion is on and on… “Infact,” said Hawking,”a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense.”
Consider the odds of shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece.
Hawking, as other most scientists, does shy away from the religion side of it though there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.
These empirical data and calculations were postulated by some of the best brains in the history of mankind…and you may challenge them given you have enough data to argue or to disagree against them.
Using the ocamrazor principle, considering the list of ‘coincidence’ or ‘just right’ proportion of nature constants and the odds agaisnt them…. considering other conclusion with almost no empiral data, limited logical deduction capability, gut feeling Q&A
It’s less complicated to choose…