Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

[TheRussianRocket.]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he's obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a "God" to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God's death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here's the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: "In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable."

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn't be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth's surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and "weak" nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term "big bang," said that his atheism was "greatly shaken" at these developments. He later wrote that "a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming" and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said "the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here."

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of "Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life" ( Dutton Adult, 2014).

Correction

An earlier version understated the number of zeroes in an octillion and a septillion.

For those who feel threatened for whatever reason by a simple postulation that God may exist, relax. Metaxas isn't demanding you believe in God.

He's pointed out the universe is filled with extraordinary order and the odds for just our planet (us) to be here is ridiculous, suggesting of a higher power "something--or Someone--beyond itself.", and then the odds of the universe to perfectly expand to make life and everything else possible.

There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and "weak" nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

It's quite funny how atheists are negative when someone has the temerity to suggest God exists. I mean, I'm not anti-science or anything lol. Heck, it's what's advanced human civilization and arguably allowed us to not become extinct yet. However when it comes to the universe and it's origins though, I'm clearly open to the thought of God. "The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all."

...try acting civil and not killing yourselves

[TOMapleLaughs]

Wow. Wasn't expecting this for an answer to my post in the other science vs. religion thread. Kudos.

[Heretic]

So Fermi's theory is looking better and better?

[TOMapleLaughs]

I guess the question is whether science will fully explain the universe and existence before God just comes out and tells us.

And now we wait...

[Buddhas Hand]

Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

The physicist explains that science now offers more convincing explanations for existence. He is therefore an atheist.

• by Chris Matyszczyk
  @ChrisMatyszczyk
• 27 September 2014, 2:33 am AEST

Stephen Hawking comes right out and says it. He is an atheist

If I were a scientist, I'd stick to the Goldman Sachs principle: bet on both sides.

"Believe in science, believe in God" seems to cover all the possibilities and gives you the best chance for a cheery afterlife.

For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.

He gave an interview to Spain's El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.

Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

I'm not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that a unifying theory of science would help mankind "know the mind of God."

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

Perhaps. But some look at, for example, the human eye and wonder how that exciting ball of jelly could have come about scientifically.

Hawking's been tending toward such an absolute pronouncement for a while. In a speech last year, he offered an explanation of how the world came to being without God. He mused: "What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?"

I do worry, though, about Hawking's sweetly divine faith in humanity. He told El Mundo: "In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind."

If that's true, the human mind still has to develop exponentially to explain everyday phenomena, such as social networking. And then there's Hawking's insistence that his speech synthesizer, which gives him a curiously American accent, has had this consequence: "With the American accent, I've had far more success with women."

We definitely need some serious research to explain that.

[LordCanuck]

Weve barely scratched the surface searching for signals. SETI barely had any funding and they only searched like 1% of the sky.

We will know definitively in the next 30 years if there is life out there and if there isn't this is one big giant joke.

[zombieksa]

The terms "straw man" and "argument from ignorance" come to mind when reading something like this. The earth
and universe seem so fine tuned for us therefore a god must have done it.

I also don't take numbers very serious when the author uses "septillion" as opposed to 1x10^24 for example.

[TheRussianRocket.]

The terms "straw man" and "argument from ignorance" come to mind when reading something like this. The earth

and universe seem so fine tuned for us therefore a god must have done it.

I also don't take numbers very serious when the author uses "septillion" as opposed to 1x10^24 for example.

Though he's not saying that. Weighing in all the conditions needed to make everything possible, odds are highly, highly against it from happening at all therefore leading the author to suggest there could be a God.

[LordCanuck]

All your saying is cause we are alive here it must have to be the same everywhere for life to start. Well we don't know that and we wont until we look at other planets. So all this is mute until that can happen.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Weve barely scratched the surface searching for signals. SETI barely had any funding and they only searched like 1% of the sky.

We will know definitively in the next 30 years if there is life out there and if there isn't this is one big giant joke.

How about if there was intelligent life out there, what makes anyone think they'd want to talk to us?

[TheRussianRocket.]

All your saying is cause we are alive here it must have to be the same everywhere for life to start. Well we don't know that and we wont until we look at other planets. So all this is mute until that can happen.

sure, ..

[Crackers]

Though he's not saying that. Weighing in all the conditions needed to make everything possible, odds are highly, highly against it from happening at all therefore leading the author to suggest there could be a God.

Thanks for explaining exactly what an argument from ignorance is.

"It seems unlikely that it could happen on its own, and I can't think of anything else, therefore god".

This article really has no credibility.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Though he's not saying that. Weighing in all the conditions needed to make everything possible, odds are highly, highly against it from happening at all therefore leading the author to suggest there could be a God.

But that's retarded. He's taking something nobody can explain and using an inexplicable entity to explain the inexplicable. And of course there's no data to support any of it. He's already concluded his god exists and then works to prove that. I'm not a scientist by any means but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

[TheRussianRocket.]

Thanks for explaining exactly what an argument from ignorance is.

"It seems unlikely that it could happen on its own, and I can't think of anything else, therefore god".

This article really has no credibility.

He's suggesting it, not jamming it down your throat. And it's numbers and facts here...just take a moment and look at the odds, conditions, parameters, needed...it's pretty much impossible to just happen on it's own imo.

[Wash]

The fact that we haven't received any signals yet must be weighed against the fact that we have only really been able to detect these signals for less than 100 years, and really only 50 years that we have been actively trying. When we look at the age of the universe (13.7 b.y.o.) and the vast distances that signals have to travel, it isn't really surprising that we haven't found a signal.

[babych]

He's suggesting it, not jamming it down your throat. And it's numbers and facts here...just take a moment and look at the odds, conditions, parameters, needed...it's pretty much impossible to just happen on it's own imo.

The problem with these numbers and facts is that the sheer size of the universe (number of galaxies, planets, etc) makes it very likely that conditions for life would exist somewhere.

Think about it like this: no one is surprised when somebody wins the lotto 6/49, even though the probability is around 1/14,000,000. The chances that any one person will win are small, but because so many tickets are sold the chance that someone will win is large.

Same case here.

[Heretic]

The problem with these numbers and facts is that the sheer size of the universe (number of galaxies, planets, etc) makes it very likely that conditions for life would exist somewhere.

Think about it like this: no one is surprised when somebody wins the lotto 6/49, even though the probability is around 1/14,000,000. The chances that any one person will win are small, but because so many tickets are sold the chance that someone will win is large.

Same case here.

You forget one thing - the sheer amount of time the universe has been here.

Read the Fermi Paradox and you'll get what I'm hinting at.

[jdatb]

Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

The physicist explains that science now offers more convincing explanations for existence. He is therefore an atheist.

• by Chris Matyszczyk
  @ChrisMatyszczyk
• 27 September 2014, 2:33 am AEST

Stephen Hawking comes right out and says it. He is an atheist

If I were a scientist, I'd stick to the Goldman Sachs principle: bet on both sides.

"Believe in science, believe in God" seems to cover all the possibilities and gives you the best chance for a cheery afterlife.

For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.

He gave an interview to Spain's El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.

Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

I'm not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that a unifying theory of science would help mankind "know the mind of God."

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

Perhaps. But some look at, for example, the human eye and wonder how that exciting ball of jelly could have come about scientifically.

Hawking's been tending toward such an absolute pronouncement for a while. In a speech last year, he offered an explanation of how the world came to being without God. He mused: "What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?"

I do worry, though, about Hawking's sweetly divine faith in humanity. He told El Mundo: "In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind."

If that's true, the human mind still has to develop exponentially to explain everyday phenomena, such as social networking. And then there's Hawking's insistence that his speech synthesizer, which gives him a curiously American accent, has had this consequence: "With the American accent, I've had far more success with women."

We definitely need some serious research to explain that.

Chris Matyszczyk is a satirical writer for a gadget review website. I don't think his articles are contribute much to the discussion.

[babych]

You forget one thing - the sheer amount of time the universe has been here.

Read the Fermi Paradox and you'll get what I'm hinting at.

I am familiar with the Paradox - I think it's way too early in human civilization to invoke it though. If our culture is still around a million years from now and we still haven't seen any evidence then maybe.

[c00kies]

But that's retarded. He's taking something nobody can explain and using an inexplicable entity to explain the inexplicable. And of course there's no data to support any of it. He's already concluded his god exists and then works to prove that. I'm not a scientist by any means but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

First bold: Theories must be falsifiable, so that's one strike against him lol.

Second Bold: It's not supposed to, and measures are usually used to prevent this from happening. However, measures can only suffice so much; drug companies will do double blinds, but some may disregard unfavorable results and only submit those that support the use of the drug.