September 26, 2005

Naturalistic Faith

If you believe in naturalism and evolution as presented by today's scientists, there are a number of things in which you must have faith. I don't have enough faith in random chance to believe that our entire existence is a cosmic accident.

In this posting, which will be rather long, I'll point out a few of the absolute requirements for just matter to exist -- not even mentioning how much more complex the requirements are for life. Then I'll illustrate the mathematical probabilities that these few conditions can exist via random chance. I'm not presupposing any conclusion -- just read and view the facts of physics and draw your own conclusion.

Neutrons and Protons


The relative mass of a proton and a neutron have to be exactly what they are, and they are nearly identical. Inside our sun, there are ongoing nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen to helium (which releases the tremendous amount of energy given off by the sun). Two protons collide and one changes into a neutron. The two particles join together, creating something called a deuteron.

This is only possible because the mass of the proton and the neutron are nearly identical. Without this process, and the creation of deuterons, there would be no nuclear reactions and no energy released by the sun. A free neutron decays into a proton and an electron. If a neutron were just .002% of it's actual size, protons would decay into neutrons -- and atoms would not exist. The most basic atom, hydrogen, is a free proton -- if protons decayed, even hydrogen could not exist.

In other words, if the relative mass of protons vs. neutrons was off by even just 0.0001%, not only could life not exist, but matter itself couldn't exist. What are the odds that this situation happened by pure random chance?

Atomic Partical Charges


When comparing the electrical charge of a proton and an electron in an atom, scientists have shown that the charges can only differ by less than one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000. Because they do not, atoms tend to have a neutral charge.

However, if one of these charged particles differed by one 1 part per 1,000,000,000, then the atom would not be electrically neutral -- they would be either positively or negatively charged. If that were the case, the parts of an atom would repel one another -- and there could be no existence of matter at all.

Strong Nuclear Force


This is the force that binds atoms together and keeps atoms from falling apart. If this force were only 3% stronger, all hydrogen in existence would become helium. If it were about 5% stronger, the thermonuclear reactions in the sun would be tremendously more efficient, ensuring all stars would burn up millions of times faster.

If this force were weaker, say 1/100th of it's actual strength, then protons would repel one another in the nucleus of atoms -- again making neither life nor even matter possible. Again, what is the probability that this force just "happened" to be exactly right?

Epsilon Constant


The Epsilon Constant is a factor that pertains to gravitational forces. If it deviated even a tiny bit in any direction, all stars in the universe would change -- becoming rapidly, exponentially cooler or hotter. The value of this constant is expressed as 2.0e-39, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000002.

This force is extremely important and delicate. If there were even the slightest deviation in this force, the universe would likely collapse. This force balances with and opposes the gravitational fine structure, measured at 5.9e-39 (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000059). The slightest change in either of these forces would change our sun into a blue giant or a red dwarf -- ensuring no life on the planet earth.

Primordial Escape Velocity


The primordial expansion velocity is the speed at which the universe is expanding. The primordial escape velocity is the combined gravity of all the universe. These two velocities must be exactly the same to maintain the universe in it's current state.

If the expansion velocity were only one part in a million greater, the entire universe would expand into nothing but gas -- no planets or stars could form. If the velocity were one part in a million less, the whole universe would collapse into itself and a black hole.

If the universe were completely random with no design or plan, what are the odds that these two forces just happen to be balanced exactly and they maintain their exact, constant rate?

The Cosmological Constant


This constant is related to the primordial escape velocity. The expanding universe is limited in it's expansion rate by the combined pull of gravity. As distance increases, this pull of gravity force decreases. The opposite force to this is the cosmological constant. This constant is less than .0000000000000000000000000000000001 per square meter.

If this constant were increased by a mere 0.0001 per square meter -- a time-space distortion would occur that would make it impossible for a person to walk a few miles and then return to where they started! This makes the concept of repetitive orbiting planets impossible.

Weak Nuclear Force


This force is the force that allows protons to change into neutrons. This force controls that rate at which that happens. If this force were reduced even a tiny amount, all of the hydrogen in the universe would change into helium!

This force retrains the rate of thermonuclear reactions in the sun -- the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force combined ensure that the rate of burn of the sun is the way that it is. Any variation in this rate and stars would not produce the amount of light and energy that they do -- increasing this value even slightly would result in all stars in the universe burning up completely and quickly.

Once again, what are the odds that such perfectly balanced intricate forces can simply happen by chance?

Actual Probabilities


This post outlined just seven different very specific physical and cosmic forces that must be maintained and must be exactly the way they are for matter to exist, never mind life. Without these exact forces (and many others), there would simply be no universe at all. Since these numbers can all be known, a mathematical simulation can be created to determine the actual odds of these situations occurring together randomly.

A software simulation was created that randomly created forces in a universe. One demonstration created 2,129 separate universe models, which give a very realistic picture of what the odds are that all requirements would be met by simple random chance.

In the example, 404 models met 1 of these 7 requirements. Only 8 met 2 of the requirements. Zero randomly generated universes met more than 2. None met 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 requirements. Sure, the user could change the program requirements to get a closer match, but that's the entire point of this post.

Given the odds and the nature of physics and forces, if there were millions of millions (1,000,000,000,000+) models created, there would be a ZERO percent chance of all 7 conditions being met. In other words, according to physics and mathematics, there is absolutely no possible way that this universe was created through random chance -- it's simply not possible.

Some sort of intelligent design is the only possible answer. You may not know or understand what that force of intelligent design may be, but it simply cannot be explained by random chance. If you fail to see that some sort of intelligence created this universe, you certainly have more faith than everyone who believes in God combined.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:02 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1271 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Of course, atheists disagree with this position because they believe that their views are by default outside the realm of "belief" or "faith." Logically speaking, you are 100% correct and I think you've done a nice job in presenting evidence where a leap of faith must occur. Naturally, the counter argument used is that we just don't know enough through science in order to address your concerns. Of course, science never defines where inane stuborness in holding to such a view begins and ends. One could make the argument that Pink Unicorns do exist and we just don't have enough science yet to support it, yet such notions are laughed at and dismissed while just as great leaps of faith are required to hold to the prevailing thoughts on cosmic and biological evolution. Brad

Posted by: Broken Messenger at September 26, 2005 06:38 PM (7pqp9)

2 Thanks for stopping by, Brad -- and you get the point of my post entirely. By saying we don't have enough science to explain something means that you must have faith in it. And to believe naturalism actually takes much more faith than intelligent design.

Posted by: Ogre at September 26, 2005 08:42 PM (iJFc9)

3 Ok...LOL...uh huh....way cool.... WAY above my head but it was fun to read. LOL

Posted by: Raven at September 27, 2005 09:06 AM (h80AX)

4 I tried to keep it simple, but sometimes some "stuff" is just too complex! Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 09:53 AM (/k+l4)

5 Very nicely done Ogre. Allah has 72 virgins waiting for his warriors, we just don't have the science yet to prove it yet. I think these are recycled virgins though..

Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2005 09:56 AM (JUnMB)

6 Thank you, Michael. But "recycled virgins?" That's beyond comprehension there...

Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 09:59 AM (/k+l4)

7 Ogre, I do believe you have found your niche. That was awesome. Now, if you do it more often you will have to take time from eating neighborhood children and stray dogs and cats....but think of eating troll sammiches instead and keep this up.... great post amigo.

Posted by: GM Roper at September 27, 2005 11:21 AM (3+aU1)

8 Thanks, GM! I'm shooting for about once a week. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just trying to analyze the science using science. I see large holes in various aspects of science and I'm just trying to point them out to see if anyone else can see them.

Posted by: Ogre at September 27, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)

9 "...to believe naturalism actually takes much more faith than intelligent design." Not sure I follow. To believe in that which by definition is *not* supernatural requires more faith than to believe in the supernatural (i.e., ID)? Within that framework, I don't doubt that you'll find all sorts of ways to poke holes in science.

Posted by: Beaming Visionary at September 28, 2005 01:42 PM (/f2f8)

10 The faith I'm mentioning here is faith in the idea that despite an actual probability of zero for the universe forming completely at random, one believes that it did. To me, it requires more faith to believe in that than it does to believe that there was someone, or something, the designed it.

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 01:47 PM (/k+l4)

11 The probability that a designer which was not itself designed by a more complex or intelligent entity could have arisen ex nihilo is also zero. No matter where people go with this, regardless of whether their beliefs are supernatural, material or both, they're going to run afoul of the same issue. But that aside, there are too many flawed assumptions in your estimates to make them worthwhile. The most egregious is noting that if given physical or astronomical properties or quantities were off by just a tiny amount, life could not exist. What this does is presume that life and its parameters and requirements came first, and that the universe arose around it in a way that just happened to conform to life's needs. What you're ignoring is obvious: By definition, any life that exists can by definition thrive only under extant conditions. There are a million other potential values for G and the masses of subatomic particles and the electric charges of atoms, and had any these been in place five billion years ago, life, had it arisen on earth, would simply be different in subtle or perhaps powerful ways. In other words, your probablity model only makes sense if one assumes that the types of lifeforms seen on the earth of today are the only lifeforms that could possibly exist. Clearly, this is specious reasoning. To ilustrate: Which is more likely? 1. God created man, which can only tolerate temperatures between about 0 F and 100 F, and then placed the earth just far enough from the sun to yield these conditions; or 2. The earth, being 93 million miles from the sun and with a pronounced axis tilt, gave rise to creatures and *only* to creatures suited to its own conditions. It's a no-brainer, a simple matter of keeping causes distinct from effects.

Posted by: Beaming Visionary at September 28, 2005 02:13 PM (/f2f8)

12 Then again, I never mentioned life in this example. In this example, I'm specifically speaking of physics and matter. There is no mention of life nor God. So the probability of THIS universe being created by random chance is still zero. There's no possibility. You're getting the point when you see that no matter what your belief system, it all has to start somewhere -- and some sort of intelligent designer, whether it's God or an alien named V-Ger doesn't matter -- simple random chance is not a reasonable explanation. Yes, there are many other possibilities for the value of the strong nuclear force -- and EVERY ONE OTHER THAN THE CURRENT ONE RESULTS IN NO MATTER. None. Nothing exists.

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 02:42 PM (/k+l4)

13 "You're getting the point when you see that no matter what your belief system, it all has to start somewhere -- and some sort of intelligent designer, whether it's God or an alien named V-Ger doesn't matter -- simple random chance is not a reasonable explanation." No, an inteligent designer is not a sine qua non of this sort of construct. In fact, when this discussion is run against the edge of Occam's razor, purely material causes make more sense, because otherwise an endless recursive loop is set up wherein a designer requires a designer requires a designer...etc. "I never mentioned life in this example." Except when you wrote: "...if the relative mass of protons vs. neutrons was off by even just 0.0001%, not only could life not exist, but matter itself couldn't exist...If this force were weaker, say 1/100th of it's actual strength, then protons would repel one another in the nucleus of atoms -- again making neither life nor even matter possible...The slightest change in either of these forces would change our sun into a blue giant or a red dwarf -- ensuring no life on the planet earth." That is why I what I based my previous post on. There are other problems with your assumptions -- among them the fact that what you label "randomness" is in the real world substituted by molecules' and subatomic particles' adherence to known physicochemical laws, and other conflations of chance events and predictable outcomes -- but as you've decided for yourself that a designer was behind it all, I won't try to dissuade you. This sort of thing isn't irksome anyway when not co-opted by Intelligent Design proponents who can be demonstrated to talk out of their arses at every opportunity. One day a designing force may indeed turn out to be the best explanation, but this sort of modeling, while an interesting thought exercise, falls shy of being explanatory (as do the best cosmological arguments available to date, actually).

Posted by: Beaming Visionary at September 28, 2005 02:54 PM (/f2f8)

14 The materialist viewpoint runs up against the exact same problem as the creator -- where did the first material come from? But, I'm glad we finally agree-- nothing can effectively explain the creation of matter (and life). That's all I want to point out -- that there's a possibility that materialists are not correct, and there's clear data and evidence to show that theirs MIGHT not be the right way.

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 03:04 PM (/k+l4)

15 (And have you noticed the really cool Google ads for all sorts of neat, physics-related stuff on this page?)

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 03:05 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
32kb generated in CPU 0.0391, elapsed 0.0916 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.0837 seconds, 204 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.