Does an atheist use logic when dealing with the origins of our universe ................?

Question

Did the universe come about solely through chance and natural processes? Or was it designed to be hospitable to life?

One of the most compelling evidences for the idea of cosmological intelligent design is the fact that the universe is finely tuned. In other words, the universe's physical constants are precisely the right values that are needed in order to sustain life.

Consider the gravitational force constant, G. If you have taken a physics course, you may remember a familiar equation for gravitational force: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2, where G = 6.67 * 10^-11. If G were slightly tweaked, complex life could not exist.

Other examples of finely tuned parameters are the strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, electromagnetic force constant, and ratio of electron to proton mass. If these parameters were even slightly smaller or slightly larger, chemistry (as we know it) would not be possible, and molecules would probably not even exist. It would be almost impossible for life of any kind to be sustained in these conditions.

There are three possible explanations for this extraordinary universal fine-tuning: 1) there exists an underlying mechanism that correctly sets these parameters; 2) it happened by sheer luck; 3) it happened by intelligent design.

a shift in sentiment among scientists regarding the cause of this fine-tuning. According to the article, “[s]tring theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation” since the search for an underlying mechanism for fine-tuning has been unfruitful.

However, the probability of randomly selecting the correct values for these parameters is so infinitesimally small that it is unreasonable to think that sheer luck alone can be the explanation for cosmological fine-tuning.

In order to increase the probabilistic resources, some scientists have been driven to suggest that there exist millions of universes that are parallel to our own universe but have different laws and constants. Even though the probability of fine-tuning is astronomically low, a fine-tuned universe could hypothetical emerge if chance has an enormous ensemble of universes at its disposal.

In reality, this concept of a multiverse is a metaphysical postulate, since only one universe is scientifically observable, and that universe is our own. The hypothetical existence of millions of universes must be assumed by faith. Charles Townes, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, suggests that the entire postulate is fantastic:

“Some scientists argue that ‘well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.' Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially”
Scientists have not found an underlying mechanism that can explain fine-tuning. Sheer luck cannot be invoked without assuming the metaphysical concept of the existence of millions of universes. The only other alternative is cosmological intelligent design, which is the idea that a Designer has intelligently calibrated the constants in order to sustain life.

A critic may ask, “Doesn't intelligent design appeal to a metaphysical cause?” Actually, the concept of intelligent design is no more metaphysical than the hypothetical concept that millions of universes exist. And Ockham's Razor would favor intelligent design over the concept of an elaborate multiverse, since intelligent design is more direct as an explanation.

If one accepts that this physical universe had a beginning, then one is forced to appeal to a metaphysical cause. For how can there be any physical explanation for the origin of the physical universe?

Answer 1

An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will deny that through gritted teeth, because it is an intellectual embarrassment.

But if he says of his Toyota that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks that nothing made it (it just happened), which is a scientific impossibility. So, to remain credible, he falls back on something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what that something was. So he’s not an atheist--he believes in an initial cause.

Answer 2

Way too much to read....



I just picked a few questions to answer:



"Did the universe come about solely through chance and natural processes?"



We don't know. I don't know that we can ever answer this question.



But so far, we have found no evidence to suggest that our universe was the result of a supernatural being or force. We only have evidence of a natural process or phenomenon. Since we have evidence of the natural, that's what I think happened. A natural process.



"Or was it designed to be hospitable to life?"



It is true that given the size of the universe, it's mathematically probable that life exist else where in the universe. But we so far, cannot prove it.



If the universe was designed to be "hospitable to life", why don't all the planets in our solar system harbor some form of life?



Why is it so far, this is the only planet in which we find life is our own? Why would a creator waste so much space, to create ONE planet with life? That doesn't seem "hospitable" to me in any way.



"If one accepts that this physical universe had a beginning, then one is forced to appeal to a metaphysical cause.



Wrong. You assume that. I don't.



I don't think that our universe's "beginning" means anything beyond it began.



"For how can there be any physical explanation for the origin of the physical universe?"



Looking at nature, most things are cyclical. One theory I've heard that seems fairly plausible to me, is that our universe is one in an infinite cycle of birth, death and rebirth.



There's an explosion that sends energy and matter out from the center of it, it then stops expanding, condenses, until all that condensed matter and energy heats up and explodes again.



I don't know if that's what happens, but it seems much more probable than a being "poofing" everything into existence by some deity.

Answer 3

Scientists recently found 2 other planets in the "survivable" zone in another solar system.



Taking the vastness of the universe into account, I think chance is a valid option. Again, not taking any side here as I am agnostic and am perfectly fine with "we don't know." However, the odds of hitting the lottery are 1 in like 200,000 or so, and people still win on occasion. I don't see why a long shot chance wouldn't also be acceptable in this scenario.

Answer 4

"From the current amount of scientific evidence, we can reliably infer that cosmological intelligent design is the most rational explanation for fine-tuning in the universe."



Saying that god did it does not explain anything.



If you say there has to be a beginning and a creator, then there always has to be a beginning and a creator. If something can't come from nothing, then where does god come from?



That seems to be an unanswerable question, and that god needs a creation as well since "something can't come from nothing" so the only logical outcome is that is the universe was never created in the first place and has simply always existed.



So you really think the creator designed the entire universe with you in mind?

Answer 5

Before you continue on with this, please do keep in mind that it is not the entire universe that can sustain life; as far as we know it is only one (maybe two) planet that can do such a thing. And that planet was able to sustain life because of a collision it had with an enormous meteor, causing what was once all molten lava to cool and emit gases that would help the first few organisms to grow and evolve. Some eventually turned into plants that would emit oxygen (what we all need to breathe) while others into animals and other life forms.



I'm fairly certain that a collision could be counted as chance, and not as fine tuning.

Answer 6

There are more arguments for the multiverse idea than you've stated, for instance gravity, it's far weaker than than the other forces. One speculation is that it is a force that is shared across parallel universes. Another is the quantum view of many worlds, as in the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment.



Whether there is a multiverse or not, the argument for a designer suffers one big flaw, the assumption that the vast universe we live in was created just for us. A bit of a waste of space.

Answer 7

Just because something is that doesn't mean it's proof of anything. Just because the universe, or should I correctly say the Earth, is situated in a way that would support life is no proof of a divine power. You're making assumptions without any basis of evidence.



I don't know how the universe came about, no one really knows. The difference between Christians and Atheists is Christians will make up assumptions to explain what they don't know while Atheists will simply say we don't know. Why is not knowing so bad? I would rather admit I don't know something than make things up.

Answer 8

Why are you assuming that the universe is adapted to fit human life? As you favour Ockham's Razor, then the most likely scenario is that life evolved to fit the universe, not the other way around. And how do you know that life is only possible under the specific circumstances of our universe? Have you studied other universes with different constants and discovered they are devoid of life? If not then you are merely guessing.

Answer 9

What appears to you to be 'fine tuning' is yet another myth (to throw on the creationist trash pile along with the 'croc-o-duck', and the idea that because a banana fits into a human hand so perfectly, that it proves the existence of a creator).



If the 'fine tuning' you describe hadn't have occurred, then life would have adapted to the alternate tuning.



Oh - and it's 'occams' not 'ockams'.



Thanks for playing!

Answer 10

Yes, intelligent design is, although not proven, a very valid theory. But all of this does not at all apply to the Biblical creation story. It's like saying "That car was made by someone, therefore it must have been made out of toothpicks in exactly three hours by a magical fairy."

Answer 11

Oh joy, another copy-paste.



The idea that some sort of intelligent being is the reason for the values of the physical constants is not a reasonable hypothesis as it only raises more questions. You *cannot* infer the existence of an intelligent being, that is *not* logical.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology

Answer 12

You are forgetting about evolution. The fact that life evolved to suit it's surroundings explains why the earth is perfectly suited to us. If our atmosphere consisted of a different combination of gasses, we would have evolved to find that combination perfectly suited to us.



Your argument is designed to provide evidence for creation, but just as easy validates evolution.



You fail.

Answer 13

OK. Let's assume you are right. But how would you know that the god who made the universe was your god? Hundreds of gods have supposedly existed over time.

Answer 14

A life-sustaining planet was bound to happen somewhere. The odds may be astronomical, but the one universe we can observe is bigger. Besides, the world didn't fine tune itself to us, we fine tuned to it.

Answer 15

I think it is logical to say I can't know how it got here rather than to say some mysterious god in the sky made it all.

Answer 16

Your thinking reminds me of the movie "The gods must be crazy." Did the empty coke bottle hit you in the head?

Answer 17

logic = using provable scientific evidence