Quote:
Originally posted by asaris
Three brief points, some of them actually relevant to the topic at hand.
1. There *is* evidence for the existence of God. Consider the fine-tuning argument:
a. The various constants (Planck's Constant, the Gravitational
Constant, etc.) are incredibly sensitive to adjustment so
that, with very little change, the universe could not have
supported life.
b. Science cannot possibly explain why the various constants
have the values they do.
c. So we need God to explain it.
This is, btw, a very weak version of the argument -- Philosophy of Religion isn't my area. But it provides some evidence for the existence of God.
|
This is very easily explained by the anthropic principle.
That is, that if the constants weren't suitable for proving life, then we wouldn't be here to observe that.
I quite strongly believe that there is more to reality than that which is within our universe. We define
our universe as that which we can perceive, directly or indirectly. There is no reason to believe that, that which we perceive encompasses reality.
Now I believe that the nature of the "reality" outside of our own universe cannot be know to us. Furthermore I don't believe that even if it could, that we would be able to comprehend it. For the same way we cannot visualise a hypercube. We have evolved our brains through living in a three dimensional world. The reason we can "visualise" three dimensions is because are brains are "designed" that way.
Our brains in a similar way, could not hope to understand the reality our side of our universe.
So I will explain this in a concrete, understandable way, but bear in mind, that my "explanation" is only for illustrative purposes, and could be considered more as a metaphor.
What if ours, was not the only big bang. To me there seems no reason to believe that it was an isolated event. Whatever "caused" the big bang, could very easily have "caused" other such phenomena, all of which are mutually exclusive.
Some people "picture" this as different universes scattered around like specs of dust in some huge space, others prefer to think of it as other universes occurring "before" or "after" our universe. Of course this is misguided, as applying such concepts as space and time to this situation is meaningless. (This is why I cringe when people ask "what came before the big bang"...nothing came "before" the big bang. The question is meaningless. What they of course should as is what caused the big bang).
So if we have this infinitude of different universes, all with different physical constants, we can realise that only those with constants favourable to support live will foster inhabitants, who will undoubtedly ask..."why are the constants the way they are?".
Also I would point out that your point a has a fundamental flaw, but from the viewpoint of my above argument, it happens to be inconsequential.
"with very little change, the universe could not have supported life.", should read "with very little change, the universe could not have supported life,
as we know it"...subtle, but vital.
Someone may point out that my belief in the anthropic principle is fundamentally no different than their faith in God. That is not so, and I feel that the reason why is pretty much self evident. If anyone really thinks that, then I will be happy to provide an explaination as to why it isn't.