Our Fine-Tuned Universe Strongly Suggests the Necessity of an Intelligent Creator: Difference between revisions

From FactsnViews.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " The famous Fred Hoyle was an adamant atheist until he realized that the basic physics and chemical structure of the universe clearly required fine-tuning: :Suppose you were a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a li...")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 3: Line 3:
The famous Fred Hoyle was an adamant atheist until he realized that the basic physics and chemical structure of the universe clearly required fine-tuning:
The famous Fred Hoyle was an adamant atheist until he realized that the basic physics and chemical structure of the universe clearly required fine-tuning:


:Suppose you were a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your
:Suppose you were a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than I part in 10^40000." Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.<ref>Hoyle, Fred. "[https://www.annualreviews.org/docserver/fulltext/astro/20/1/annurev.aa.20.090182.000245.pdf?expires=1718736314&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=8030937379BE36DE0FADC5A83D109E2D The universe: Past and present reflections]." ''Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics'' 20.1 (1982): 1-36.</ref>
calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance
 
of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than I part in 10^40000." Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.
 
See also Spitzer, Robert J., and Ph D. SJ. "Evidence for God from Physics and Philosophy." (2016).<ref>Spitzer, Robert J., and Ph D. SJ. "[https://alumniulia.org/te158/z92xds_22/b23xa__23/Temas%20brutos%20nuevos/Ciencia%20y%20Filosofia/Evidence%20for%20God%20from%20Physics%20and%20Philosoph.pdf Evidence for God from Physics and Philosophy]." (2016)</ref>
 
<references />

Latest revision as of 14:10, 18 June 2024


The famous Fred Hoyle was an adamant atheist until he realized that the basic physics and chemical structure of the universe clearly required fine-tuning:

Suppose you were a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than I part in 10^40000." Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.[1]


See also Spitzer, Robert J., and Ph D. SJ. "Evidence for God from Physics and Philosophy." (2016).[2]

  1. Hoyle, Fred. "The universe: Past and present reflections." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20.1 (1982): 1-36.
  2. Spitzer, Robert J., and Ph D. SJ. "Evidence for God from Physics and Philosophy." (2016)