Through The Wormhole: Is there A Creator?, page 1

Is There a Creator?
By Nathan Chandler, HowStuffWorks.com

For centuries, philosophers and scientists have marveled at the complexity of our universe and asked a lot of hard questions. Are we the only intelligent life in the universe? Is the entire universe and life on Earth simply the chance result of a combination of physical phenomena? Or did some supreme being somehow plan and then will this universe into existence?

Many physicists and philosophers alike have argued that it's very unlikely that our universe is the product of pure chance. They insist that nature alone could not achieve the precarious balance of forces that resulted in the equilibrium of galaxies and life forms we know. They say that this finely-tuned universe was guided by a great being we have yet to understand.

This theory of fine tuning bases its assertions on the constants of nature. The most commonly referenced constants are gravity, electromagnetic force, and strong and weak nuclear forces. Proponents of the fine-tuning assertion say that if the intensity of any of these constants changed — even in the smallest amount — our universe would be a very different place, and much more inhospitable to life as we know it.

Some quirky and fortunate physics came into play as these constants guided the universe’s formation. For example, take the existence of carbon, which is the foundation of all life. Carbon results from the binding of three helium atoms. Statistically, creating prolific amounts of carbon is very unlikely, because each of the three atoms has slightly different energy levels that preclude the economical formation of carbon.

But the electromagnetic and strong nuclear constants level out the energy levels of the helium atoms — as a result, carbon forms. Even a tiny change in either of these constants would greatly inhibit carbon production, and thus, greatly reduce the potential for life.

Similarly, the special relationship between the weak nuclear force and gravity allowed for the preservation of hydrogen during the Big Bang, which would have otherwise transformed the hydrogen into helium. Without hydrogen, there'd be no water.

Likewise, the narrowly defined initial conditions present at the birth of our universe were critical to ensuring its survival. Most scientists agree that the big bang marked the beginning of our universe, and that the forces involved in this event were calibrated with the same care as the rest of the laws of physics. For example, when the big bang occurred, the force of gravity wasn't so strong that it immediately collapsed the new universe back into itself. Instead, it let matter expand steadily into all directions. Atoms circled and joined together to create stars, planets, solar systems and eventually, life.

There are many arguments against the finely tuned universe. Some opponents claim that the sheer vastness of our universe shows that there could be infinite permutations in the combination of physical laws, and that as mere humans bound by the laws of our own universe, we simply cannot observe other universes. Other doubters say we just can't yet comprehend the physical laws that rule our universe. With more time and insight, they say, we'll disprove the notion of a supernatural creator.

However, we can all agree that the universe is an overwhelmingly complex place. The most intelligent human minds of history have uncovered countless tantalizing clues as to our origins, but complete answers to all of our questions still evade our understanding. Eventually, we may find that the finely tuned universe assertion offered key insights into the existence of a super-intelligent creator. At the very least, the concepts driving these assertions confirm one thing for sure — our universe is, without a doubt, a magnificently calibrated design that won't be unraveled and fully understood anytime soon.

science.discovery.com...




This is an amazing episode and the first one I have seen. I really found the last theory as the most interesting, that we might be living in a simulation.

reply to post by Misoir

---

I'm 2/3rds of the way done with part 1 and they've already committed to the false idea that the Universe is fine tuned for life, they even use the words fine tuning.

The Universe is NOT fine tuned for life, our planet might SEEM that way but most other planets are FAR from fine tuned, most are barren and icy, others are massive Jupiter like gas giants... Until we discover life off of this planet the Universe is very POOR for life. I'm honestly ashamed that this is the first episode on the "Science" channel and most of it is philosophical (at least thus far) though they keep repeating that its scientists saying God exists as if pretending there's a scientific consensus on the supernatural

Edit to add: Part 2 takes us back to the real science, looks like this program might be okay after all.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

---

I'm in agreeance with most of your post, specifically the very idea that there is (or ever will be) a scientific consensus on the supernatural (if there was, it would not be the supernatural, right?).

Also, and equally as important: Is that the dude from mystery science theater 3000? I haven't seen that show in at least a decade, but loved it when it was on.

reply to post by grantbeed

---

Those are some very credible points. I am a person that experiences Déjà Vu a lot more than I think anyone should. I experience it at least once every two or three days, at least.

And OBE I don't think I have ever had one of those, but isn't it when you just fall asleep then you feel like your falling and you kick or something? Because if so I have those A LOT, about twice some nights.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Misoir

---

I'm 2/3rds of the way done with part 1 and they've already committed to the false idea that the Universe is fine tuned for life, they even use the words fine tuning.

The Universe is NOT fine tuned for life, our planet might SEEM that way but most other planets are FAR from fine tuned, most are barren and icy, others are massive Jupiter like gas giants... Until we discover life off of this planet the Universe is very POOR for life. I'm honestly ashamed that this is the first episode on the "Science" channel and most of it is philosophical (at least thus far) though they keep repeating that its scientists saying God exists as if pretending there's a scientific consensus on the supernatural

Edit to add: Part 2 takes us back to the real science, looks like this program might be okay after all.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

In fact the universe is fine tuned for life. To believe that we are the only life on this planet is like saying is like me saying that I'm the only thinking being on the planet, and everyone else has predetermined and programmed output function to serve me.

But imagine if there was life on Mars right now. It would just be a galactic race to dominate the other world. Draw your pistol before the other cowboy draws his...One culture would be less technologically advanced and serve no purpose to the other. Why would we allow them to catch up and destroy us?

I don't think any type of government would be equipped and intelligent enough to deal with order in their country, peace with other countries, and yet still have to worry about trusting a world of intelligent aliens.

Then again what's the reason for deserted gaseous worlds? Well I guess that's like asking what's the point of a dead body. Are there more dead bodies under the ground, or are there more people living right now? Jupiter could be in the beginning stages of being able to support life...we don't know...we don't know how water and consciousness is formed on planets. The sun could have been a

The Earth is fine tuned for life because we are here. Thus, the entire universe is perfect...even if we are alone. We have no idea what's best for our civilization, but a creator certainly would have thought it out...

reply to post by Shark VA84

---

Yeah, there's definitely not a scientific consensus on the supernatural especially since science can ONLY study the natural and look for natural explanations.

I did watch the entire program then and it got a little better, they talked about the various theories that explain our belief in God or that God might in fact be a computer programmer and us his simulation. That idea, while certainly philosophic and not scientific, is definitely interesting. I'm just glad they didn't give the whole show over to being biased toward there being a creator.

I'd like to see more episodes where they stick to things based in science and not the personal philosophical musings of a handful of scientists.

The science channel should be like a restaurant serving up science, in which case I'd like them to take my meal back, they got religion all over my science

And yes it's Doctor Clayton Forrester from MST3K

If you click the link in my sig it takes you to an episode of the show (though this week I picked one without Doctor F)

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 10 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 10 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: