Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

[Dancing David]

I was cruising the gospel kingdom website ( I had googled refute atheism)

They say this refutes it!

Web page


One small step for God, One Giant Leap for the Antitheist
by Dr. John Polkinghorne
In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the processes of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe's history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 1060. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davis of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away and hitting the mark!
Dr. John Polkinghorne is a quantum physicist, and president of Queens College, Cambridge.

 

[espritch]

I don't see how this refutes atheism. All they are saying is that for the universe to behave as it has been observed to behave, certain initial conditions had to true. This is true as far as it goes but it does not prove that those conditions were dictated by God, so it doesn't prove the existence of God.

The argument boils down to: "The initial conditions of the big bang are consistent with the observed nature of the resulting universe. Therefore God.

This logic leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Those numerate that have the misfortune not to exist disagree with Dr Polkinghorne.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

And they can tell the difference between a bet before the race and a bet after.

 

[Just thinking]

I was cruising the gospel kingdom website ( I had googled refute atheism)

They say this refutes it!

Ah, excuse me for bringing this up, but doesn't this type of false logic fall into the same category as when one examines the probability of the random distribution of billiard balls on a table after the cue ball strikes, claims that an infinitely small probability just took place and then wonders how such a remote event could have possibly happened? Yes, one can look at all the very remote conditions that would have to have happened to create the universe as we see it, but it already happened -- hence we are here to observe it. If these conditions were different, perhaps different entities would be pondering the universe -- or none at all. These types of arguments prove nothing, except to show the lack of critical thinking skills employed by some of us.

 

[Bruce]

Of course, it all make sense. Anything that can't be immediately explained must be God.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, maybe what the question should boil down to is why is there life versus no life, and why does it entail sentience which, for some reason wants to know why it's here? That's quite an accomplishment for a Universe which just up and appeared out of nowhere don't you think? Do you think the Universe itself will ever be able to furnish the answer?

 

[Jessica Blue]

why is there life versus no life

That's the million dollar question which has plagued every philosopher. Why should there be something, rather than nothing? To which we can add...why should there be something, including God, rather than nothing?

why does it entail sentience which, for some reason wants to know why it's here?

Or no reason. Perhaps that questioning is just a consequence of having a more complex brain than other animals and not an indication that we have some special purpose.

Our bafflement at the mysteries of the ages may have been the price we paid for a combinatorial mind that opened up a world of words and sentences, of theories and equations, of poems and melodies, of jokes and stories, the very things that make a mind worth having...

Stephen Pinker

 

[c4ts]

I can't view the site. I get an error.

 

[triadboy]

In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together).

He seems to know what happened in the "early universe" prior to space and time.

Additionally, I don't think there has to be a 'close balance' in the early expansion. I think expansion won early on - it's gravity that's trying to catch up.

If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse...

'the world" - this makes me think this was not written by a "quantum physicist". It's a rank mistake, doncha think?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Try this:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/leap.html

Dr John Polkinghorne is a bona fide scientist but that web site's production of that quote (if it is accurate) is out of any context and doesn't do a great job.

I attended a lecture by the Dr a few years ago

 

[c4ts]

I get it. If you shoot the wall, and draw a target around the bullet hole: INSTANT BULLSEYE!

At least that's what the website was trying to do.

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

Ah, excuse me for bringing this up, but doesn't this type of false logic fall into the same category as when one examines the probability of the random distribution of billiard balls on a table after the cue ball strikes, claims that an infinitely small probability just took place and then wonders how such a remote event could have possibly happened? Yes, one can look at all the very remote conditions that would have to have happened to create the universe as we see it, but it already happened -- hence we are here to observe it. If these conditions were different, perhaps different entities would be pondering the universe -- or none at all. These types of arguments prove nothing, except to show the lack of critical thinking skills employed by some of us.

But there must a point where the probability is so low as to make the event impossible. This is the whole point of figuring out a probability.

And, this is the reason why prophecy is central to Christianity. If a low probability event is predicted with accuracy, one has shown the supernatural.

I think it is only way to make the supernatural falsifiable.

 

[Donks]

Re: Re: Re: Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

But there must a point where the probability is so low as to make the event impossible. This is the whole point of figuring out a probability.

Why? Flip a coin a trillion times. The probability that you'd get whichever string of heads and tails you got was astronomically small, yet it happened. A small probablility does not make an event impossible.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Re: Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

But there must a point where the probability is so low as to make the event impossible. This is the whole point of figuring out a probability.

And, this is the reason why prophecy is central to Christianity. If a low probability event is predicted with accuracy, one has shown the supernatural.

I think it is only way to make the supernatural falsifiable.

The issue of probability is a somke screen what is the probable difference between 3.0000043 and 3.0000044? Yes if we quadruple the gravitational force the universe collapses or if we triple the weak force things stop working. But there could be a plethora of universes where the proabilities vary by smaller fractions that 4/1 or 3/1. In fact if you looks at Guth's infl;ationary model and the potential for 'budding' universes there is a system that says universe that collapse will be selected against while universes that expand will predominate. Because then expaniding universes are more likely to create 'buds'.

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

Why? Flip a coin a trillion times. The probability that you'd get whichever string of heads and tails you got was astronomically small, yet it happened. A small probablility does not make an event impossible.

I agree. What makes it supernatural is to predict that string of heads and tails.

 

[Donks]

I agree. What makes it supernatural is to predict that string of heads and tails.

Yes, consistent accurate prediction of low probability events would possibly be supernatural. What low probability events has Christianity accurately predicted?

Edited: Removed a be.

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

Yes, consistent accurate prediction of low probability events would possibly be supernatural.

I don't agree that it would have to be consistent, just an accurate prediction of a low probability event (e.g. the winning number of a state lottery draw)

What low probability events has Christianity accurately predicted?

More important question is what probability events is Christianity still in a position to predict accurately.

 

[Donks]

Re: Re: Re: Expanding Universe refutes Atheism

I don't agree that it would have to be consistent, just an accurate prediction of a low probability event (e.g. the winning number of a state lottery draw)

Hmm, no. You could say that every lottery winner won by supernatural means, if that were the case. Doing something only once is more likely to be random chance. Consistency is what shows there is a mechanism at work.

More important question is what probability events is Christianity still in a position to predict accurately.

No. That would be the important question iff Christianity had een shown to be an accurate predictor of events.

 

[Christian]

Hmm, no. You could say that every lottery winner won by supernatural means, if that were the case. Doing something only once is more likely to be random chance. Consistency is what shows there is a mechanism at work.

I'm sure that the person who could predict beforehand the winning numbers would also win the million dollar chanllenge. Judges???

No. That would be the important question iff Christianity had een shown to be an accurate predictor of events.

I agree that skeptics punch holes, sufficient to hold the said position. My point is that Christianity continues to be the most powerful force in human history till this day precisely because of its relevance. Central to Christianity is its predictions of the future. From the skeptic's viewpoint, that should be its certain downfall. We only have to wait...