The Bell Foundry

Rediscovering and recovering lost and endangered American liberties by studying our Founders' ideas, contemporaries, and etymology – because our united States "…are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…"

Is There Logical Support for the Existence of a God?


Is there a God?

“The Universe originated from some force outside of time, space, and matter.”

godModern science reveals that our physical Universe is made up of an interdependent integration of time, space, and matter, and evidence points to the idea that the Universe had a beginning (the Big Bang theory contends that the Universe sprang into existence from a single point of something).  Therefore, it follows that the Universe originated from some force outside of time, space, and matter (a First Cause). Two basic theories for how the Universe began are:

1) The Universe, by chance, sprang into existence with actual working laws and conditions in our Solar System that just happen to have the right conditions to support Earth life, or there have been countless Big Bangs that failed, and our Universe is just the product of probabilities.

2) The Universe is far too complex, and has too much appearance of purposeful design, not to have had a creative intelligence behind it.

The second theory, in my and other opinions, is the much more logical theory. Even the quintessential atheist Richard Dawkins admins the overwhelming appearance of design in nature:

“Designoid (appearing to have been designed) objects look designed, so much so that some people – probably, alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are wrong… the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very different.”

If the natural world appears to have been designed, is it so far-fetched to investigate the idea that perhaps it was designed? The unlikely chance of meeting all of the exacting requirements for conditions for life in the Milky Way is mind boggling, to say the least:

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

  1. galaxy size (9) (p = 0.1)if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptionsif too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form
  2. galaxy type (7) (p = 0.1)if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistryif too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form
  3. galaxy location (9) (p = 0.1)if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for lifeif too close to large galaxy(ies): same result
  4. supernovae eruptions (8) (p = 0.01)if too close: radiation would exterminate lifeif too far: too little “ash” would be available for rocky planets to formif too infrequent: same resultif too frequent: radiation would exterminate lifeif too soon: too little “ash” would be available for rocky planets to formif too late: radiation would exterminate life
  5. white dwarf binaries (8) (p = 0.01)if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistryif too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminatedif too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistryif too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
  6. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption (9)if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistryif closer: nebula would be blown apart
  7. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption (9)if earlier: nebula would be blown apartif later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry
  8. parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2)if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formationif lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible
  9. parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1)if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planetsif too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets
  10. z-axis range of star’s orbit (9) (p = 0.1)if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great
  11. number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2)if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for lifeif fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry
  12. parent star birth date (9) (p = 0.2)if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistryif less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry
  13. parent star age (9) (p = 0.4)if older: star’s luminosity would be too erratic for life supportif younger: same result
  14. parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001)if greater: star’s luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support lifeif lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis
  15. parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05)if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would existif too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life
  16. parent star color (9) (p = 0.4)if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain lifeif bluer: same result
  17. H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1)if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never formif too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life
  18. parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001)if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would developif increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
  19. surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for lifeif weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water for life
  20. distance from parent star (13) (p = 0.001)if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycleif lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
  21. inclination of orbit (22) (p = 0.5)if too great: temperature range on the planet’s surface would be too extreme for life
  22. orbital eccentricity (9) (p = 0.3)if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life
  23. axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3)if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-formsif lesser: same result
  24. rate of change of axial tilt (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life
  25. rotation period (11) (p = 0.1)if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for lifeif shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life
  26. rate of change in rotation period (14) (p = 0.05)if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too extreme for sustained lifeif less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too slow for the development of advanced life
  27. planet’s age (9) (p = 0.1)if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for lifeif too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life
  28. magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01)if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severeif weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar and stellar radiation
  29. thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01)if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for lifeif lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life
  30. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: runaway glaciation would developif less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
  31. asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyedif less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements
  32. mass of body colliding with primordial earth (9) (p = 0.002)if greater: Earth’s orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for lifeif lesser: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
  33. timing of above collision (9) (p = 0.05)if earlier: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining roleif later: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be too luminous for subsequent life
  34. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1)if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidlyif lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
  35. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01)if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would developif less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
  36. water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would developif less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life
  37. atmospheric electric discharge rate (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for lifeif less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere
  38. ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for lifeif less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life
  39. oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth’s ecosystemif less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe
  40. seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1)if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damagedif less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup
  41. volcanic activity (26)if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for life advanced life supportif higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
  42. rate of decline in tectonic activity (26) (p = 0.1)if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced lifeif faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
  43. rate of decline in volcanic activity (9) (p = 0.1)if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for sustained land lifeif faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life
  44. oceans-to-continents ratio (11) (p = 0.2)if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limitedif smaller: same result
  45. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (9) (p = 0.1)if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced lifeif greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive
  46. distribution of continents (10) (p = 0.3)if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life
  47. frequency and extent of ice ages (9) (p = 0.1)if lesser: Earth’s surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life.if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing
  48. soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1)if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limitedif nutrient richer: same result
  49. gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1)if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for lifeif lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation
  50. Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1)if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth’s orbit
  51. Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1)if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth’s orbit 9 if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions
  52. drift in (major) planet distances (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: Earth’s orbit would be destabilized if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life
  53. major planet orbital eccentricities (18) (p = 0.05)if greater: Earth’s orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
  54. major planet orbital instabilities (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: Earth’s orbit would be pulled out of life support zone
  55. atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1)if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support lifeif greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth’s surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth’s surface
  56. atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth’s surface for life support if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth’s surface for life support
  57. chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms
  58. iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient if very small: no life would be possible
  59. tropospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life
  60. stratospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth’s surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth’s surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth
  61. mesospheric ozone quantity (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere if lesser: same result
  62. frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (24) (p = 0.01)if greater: advanced life would be impossible if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production
  63. quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1)if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency
  64. biomass to comet-infall ratio (9) (p = 0.01)if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect
  65. quantity of sulfur in planet’s core (9) (p = 0.1)
    if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
    if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field
  66. quantity of sea-salt aerosols (9) (p = 0.1)
    if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
    if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate
  67. dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)
  68. longevity requirements (estimate .00001)

Total Probability = 1:1099

(Taken from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html)

The evidence of so many precise measurements in the Universe leads us to suspect the oversight of some sort of intelligence.  There are other, however wilder theories, but Intelligent Design arguably seems the most logical.

A God Makes Sense

If, therefore, it seems a logical conclusion that the Universe was designed by some sort of intelligence, then what sort of intelligence is outside of time, space, and matter, that might be capable of such design?  A being that we humans would refer to as ‘God’ seems to fit that description.

Apologist Frank Turek notes:

“Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang. Nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:

  • spaceless because it created space
  • timeless because it created time
  • immaterial because it created matter
  • powerful because it created it out of nothing
  • intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
  • personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices)

Those are the same attributes of the God of the Bible.”

Stay tuned for a future post: assessing which God is the most logical God.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on October 17, 2016 by in Logic.
%d bloggers like this: