Since I was in the midst of writing a series about the non-fine tuning of the universe I decided to read a somewhat academic book from some advocates of fine tuning. Instead of the obvious apologetics of William Lane Craig and Dinesh D’Souza, I picked up a copy of Fitness Of The Cosmos For Life: Biochemistry And Fine-Tuning by John Barrow, Simon Conway Morris, Stephen Freeland and Charles Harper. The forward was written by George M. Whitesides who is a Chemistry professor at Harvard and that is the reason I am writing this. Continue reading
Today I want to write about the ratio of electrons to protons in the universe and the expansion rate of the universe. The ratio of protons to electrons is a value that creationist/apologist (oddly an actual PhD in astronomy) Hugh Ross says that if it were smaller there would be to little chemical binding and if it were larger, electromagnetism would dominate gravity preventing star and galaxy formation (which he claims is impossible since electromagnetism is stronger than gravity by a factor of 1037 which I showed to be false in my last article which you can read here). The expansion rate of the universe is a favorite of both William Lane Craig and Dinesh D’Souza. Hugh Ross claims there could be no galaxy formation if this value were larger and if it were smaller the universe would collapse. Craig and D’Souza both used a quote from Stephen Hawking out of context and then they intentionally ignored his own explanation which appeared a mere seven pages later. The misused quote from A Brief History Of Time was
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.
and the explanation they ignored that was written in the same book a mere seven pages later
The rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is so very close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion was very carefully chosen.
It is clear neither value was fine tuned and I will attempt to explain after a little digression. Continue reading
Filed under: Atheism, Christianity, Cosmology, Evolution, Religious Absurdity, Science | Tagged: Astronomy, Cosmology, Dinesh D'Souza, Edwin Hubble, Hubble Space Telescope, Hugh Ross, Milky Way, William Lane Craig | 2 Comments »
I always have thought since I first heard the Kalam cosmological argument as it often is used along with the fine tuning argument that it just didn’t make much sense. Then again, I have never thought many purely deductive arguments made any particular sense. Considering that a major proponent of the KCA (Kalam cosmological argument), William Lane Craig (Read my article Deductive Idiot part 1 and part 2), I decided writing a series of articles addressing the fine tuning argument (rather the supposedly tuned constants which by no means are tuned) would be a very interesting endeavor. The reason I will not address the KCA in much detail is because no deductive argument can tell you anything that is not assumed in the premises. The KCA says
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause.
To be honest the logic is sound but the conclusion is true only if the two premises are true. Does everything that exists have a cause? William Lane Craig nor any of the many others that use the KCA to “prove” god exists have apparently never cracked open a physics text for at least 50 years and I will give you an example showing that each premise is false. Continue reading
Filed under: Christianity, Cosmology, Religious Absurdity, Science | Tagged: Alternative, Coulomb's law, Fine-tuning, Newton's law of universal gravitation, Physics, Universe, William Lane Craig | 3 Comments »
I have been hearing these comments many times lately. For the most part I have heard them from fundajelical Christians who claim microevolution happens while there is no possible way macroevolution could happen. Also for some reason they continue to call the modern theory of evolution Darwinism as if there have been no advances in the theory and it was finalized by Darwin in 1859. It is also interesting to notice that fundajelicals often call evolutionary theory Darwinism as if they are saying “yes, we have an irrational belief in a religion but you have an ‘ism’ too.” The saddest part is that I have heard these same three statements made by a self-proclaimed agnostic that believes in an intelligent creator (which means he is a theist not an agnostic). Since these mistaken beliefs are apparently so widespread, I figured writing an article addressing them would be a very good idea. Continue reading
Filed under: Biology, Creationism, Evolution, Genetics, Paleontology, Science | Tagged: Biology, Charles Darwin, Darwinism, Evolution, Isthmus of Panama, Jerry Coyne, Macroevolution, Origin of Species | 1 Comment »
Recently I had an exchange with another blogger (Prayson Daniel) here who claims there were no dying and rising gods besides Jesus. Apparently he found it “easy” to attack the discredited book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ by Kersey Graves and the controversial work of DM Murdock (Achraya S). Instead, if this blogger would have looked at some more recent and credible work AND a few Greek tragedies, in particular the earliest extant European novel, his conclusion would have been vastly different. Considering he is a Christian fundamentalist, his conclusion probably would have been the same after a long session of him sticking his fingers in his ears and crying out “la-la-la.” Continue reading
Filed under: Atheism, Christianity, Religious Absurdity | Tagged: Christian, Christianity, Jesus, Justin Martyr, Kersey Graves, Resurrection Of Jesus, Robert M. Price, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ | 32 Comments »
Ok Christians, this is your turn to speak up. I have a question about Jesus‘ resurrection. I fully understand the Christian claim of Jesus sacrifice and following atonement but what I don’t understand, actually what I find totally unintelligible, is why Paul wrote ( 1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV)
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
Paul never gave any reason for his conclusion, at least I have never found one anywhere in his epistles. Quite often when anyone questions the resurrection all the Christians I have spoken to fall back on the idea Paul put forth that Christianity is “useless” unless Jesus has been raised. My problem (bet you wondered when I would get to the point) is that Christianity’s idea of the atoning sacrifice was because Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice (which wasn’t a true sacrifice since it was a short vacation). Nowhere is a resurrection a requirement for a Christian’s salvation. Can some Christians please shed some light on this. Don’t worry, I am not baiting you guys into an argument nor am I luring anyone into a trap. This is just an honest question that I would like answered.
As I promised last week, I was going to write a short review on another Strobel book. On the off chance that Camping and his stupidity of the rapture was right, I waited till after 6 to write this since if the Christians were raptured I wouldn’t have to torture myself by writing this. Since Camping apparently went camping somewhere in southern California and there was no rapture, guess I should get on with the rest of this article. Continue reading