Before you read this, consider God as a supernatural force outside time and space. I say this so as to avoid the famous childish question, "Who created God?".
Most of the extracts below are references to the book, "The Language of God".
First, one must be familiar to the Anthropic priniciple. Now there are three possible responses to the Anthropic principle.
1- There may be an essentially infinite number of universes, either occuring simultaneously with our own or in some sequence, with different values of physical constants, and maybe even different physical laws. We are, however, unable to observe the other universes. we can exist only in a universe where all the physical properties work together to permit life and consciousness. Ours is not miraculous, it is simply an unusual product of trial and error. This is called the 'multiuniverse' hypothesis.
2- There is only one universe, and this is it. It just happened to have all the right charectaristics to give rise to intelligent life. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here discussing this. We are just very, very, very lucky.,
3- There is only one universe. and this is it. The precise tuning of all of the physical constantsand physical laws to make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the universe in the first place.
So where should we come down on the three options listed above? Let us approach it logically. To begin with, we have the observation of the universe as we know it, including ourselves. We then wish to calculate which of these three possible options is most likely. For option 1, as the number of parallel universes approaches infinity, then the likelihood of at least one of them havinng the physical properties of life could be substantial. For option 2, however, the probability will be vanishingly small. The likelihood of option 3 depends on the existence of a supernatural Creator who cares about a nonsterile universe.
On the basis of probability, option 2 is the least plauisble. That leaves us with option 1 and 3. The first is logically defensible, but this near-infinite number of unobservable universes stains credulity. It certainly fails Occam's Razor.
Those categorically unwilling to accept an intelligent Creator will argue, however, that option 3 is not simpler at all, since it requires the intercession of a supernatural being. It could be argued, however, that the Big Bang itself seems to point strongle towards a Creator, since otherwise the question of what came before is left hanging in the air.
If one is willing to accept the argument that the Big Bang requires a Creator, then it is not a long leap to suggest that the Creatot might have established the paramaters( Physical laws etc..) in order to accomplish a particular goal. If that goal happened to include a universe that was more than a featureless void, then we have arrived at option 3.
In trying to judge betweens options 1 and 3, a particular parable by philosopher John Leslie comes to mind. In this parable, and individual faces a firing squad, and fifty expert marksmen aim their rifles to carry out the deed. The order is given, the shots ring out, and yet somehow all of the bullets miss and the condemned individual walks away untouched.
How could such a remarkable event be explained? Leislie suggests there are two possible alternatives, which correspond to the options 1 and 3. In the first place, there may have been thousands of executions carried out that same day, and even the best marksmen will occasionally miss. So the odds just happen to be in favour of this one individual, and all fifty of the marksmen fail to hit the target. The other option is that something more directed is going on, and the apparent poor aim of the fifty experts was actually intentional. Which seems more plausible?
Most of the extracts below are references to the book, "The Language of God".
First, one must be familiar to the Anthropic priniciple. Now there are three possible responses to the Anthropic principle.
1- There may be an essentially infinite number of universes, either occuring simultaneously with our own or in some sequence, with different values of physical constants, and maybe even different physical laws. We are, however, unable to observe the other universes. we can exist only in a universe where all the physical properties work together to permit life and consciousness. Ours is not miraculous, it is simply an unusual product of trial and error. This is called the 'multiuniverse' hypothesis.
2- There is only one universe, and this is it. It just happened to have all the right charectaristics to give rise to intelligent life. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here discussing this. We are just very, very, very lucky.,
3- There is only one universe. and this is it. The precise tuning of all of the physical constantsand physical laws to make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the universe in the first place.
So where should we come down on the three options listed above? Let us approach it logically. To begin with, we have the observation of the universe as we know it, including ourselves. We then wish to calculate which of these three possible options is most likely. For option 1, as the number of parallel universes approaches infinity, then the likelihood of at least one of them havinng the physical properties of life could be substantial. For option 2, however, the probability will be vanishingly small. The likelihood of option 3 depends on the existence of a supernatural Creator who cares about a nonsterile universe.
On the basis of probability, option 2 is the least plauisble. That leaves us with option 1 and 3. The first is logically defensible, but this near-infinite number of unobservable universes stains credulity. It certainly fails Occam's Razor.
Those categorically unwilling to accept an intelligent Creator will argue, however, that option 3 is not simpler at all, since it requires the intercession of a supernatural being. It could be argued, however, that the Big Bang itself seems to point strongle towards a Creator, since otherwise the question of what came before is left hanging in the air.
If one is willing to accept the argument that the Big Bang requires a Creator, then it is not a long leap to suggest that the Creatot might have established the paramaters( Physical laws etc..) in order to accomplish a particular goal. If that goal happened to include a universe that was more than a featureless void, then we have arrived at option 3.
In trying to judge betweens options 1 and 3, a particular parable by philosopher John Leslie comes to mind. In this parable, and individual faces a firing squad, and fifty expert marksmen aim their rifles to carry out the deed. The order is given, the shots ring out, and yet somehow all of the bullets miss and the condemned individual walks away untouched.
How could such a remarkable event be explained? Leislie suggests there are two possible alternatives, which correspond to the options 1 and 3. In the first place, there may have been thousands of executions carried out that same day, and even the best marksmen will occasionally miss. So the odds just happen to be in favour of this one individual, and all fifty of the marksmen fail to hit the target. The other option is that something more directed is going on, and the apparent poor aim of the fifty experts was actually intentional. Which seems more plausible?
Buy on AliExpress.com
