That Great Guy Paul Davies and his Buddy the Universe
I have read a lot of quotes from Paul Davies in many books. He is a "renowned physicist at Arizona State University," (1) "Templeton Laureate and prominent physicist," (2) and was dubbed by former leading atheist Antony Flew as "arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science." (3)
Because of this evidence, called the fine-tuning of the universe, Davies moved from promoting atheism in 1983 to conceding in 1984 that “the laws [of physics] … seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design,” (7) to in 1988 saying that there “is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.” (8)
Here's some more stuff he wrote: "It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out ... the seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design." (9)
"The cliche' that 'life is balanced on a knife-edge' is a staggering understatement in this case: no knife in the universe could have an edge that fine." (10)
Dr. John Polkinghorne, president of Queens College, Cambridge, wrote quite an interesting bit about the universe (and therefor God because He is proven by it): "In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the processes of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe's history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10E60. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark!" (11)
Paul Davies tells us that if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by one part in 10E16, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only one part in 10E40 and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will be only large stars. Both large and small stars are needed; the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces, and only the small ones burn long enough to sustain a planet with life. According to Davies, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away(12).
This theory, Davies rejects. He once noted: "Multiverse proponents are often vague about how the parameter values are chosen across the defined ensemble. If there is a 'law of laws' describing how parameter values are assigned as one slips from one universe to the next, then we have only shifted the problem of cosmic biophilicity up one level. Why? First, because we need to explain where the law of laws comes from." (13)
Indeed, a common response to this idea is that any multiverse generator would have to be fine-tuned as well. I mean, come on, it would have to be more elegant in some way to produce so many worlds that can achieve the level of ours! The people who have created these generators always end up with something complex, that needs to be just right in order for life to be achievable in the grand universe ensemble(14).
But Davies, to my knowledge, is not a theist. So he has an explanation of his own: "There's no need to invoke anything supernatural in the origins of the universe or of life. I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering: for me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set of mathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these things into being." (15)
Christian apologist John Lennox has created a scathing response to such a hypothesis. In fact, I do not have the prowess to shorten it without losing the power of his message:
"It is strange that a scientist of Davies's standing confesses to deciding how things started on the basis of like or dislike. That is no better in principle than someone who says he likes to think there are fairies at the bottom of his garden. Furthermore, what could possibly be meant by laws bringing themselves or the universe into existence? Theories and laws cannot themselves cause anything. Newton's laws can describe the motion of a billiard ball, but it is the cue wielded by the billiards player that sets the ball moving, not the laws. The laws help us map the trajectory of the ball's movement in the future (provided nothing external interferes), but they are powerless to move the ball, let alone bring it into existence.
"In the world in which most of us live, the simple law of arithmetic, 1 + 1 = 2, never brought anything into being by itself. It certainly has never put any money into my bank. If I put one thousand pounds into the bank and then later another one thousand pounds, the laws of arithmetic will tell me that I have two thousand pounds in the bank. But if I simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being in my bank account, I shall remain bankrupt. The world of strict naturalism, in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence, is pure fiction." (16)
Paul Davies is an incredible scientist. He has wallowed in the largest evidence for God's existence, but unfortunately decided not to believe the right conclusion. Hopefully one day, if he hasn't already, Davies will look at the resurrection of Jesus and reconsider God's role in the creation of our home, the universe.
Citations:
1. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Tyndale: 2009), 56.
2. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 177.
3. Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Harperone: 2007), 111.
4. Freeman J. Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 250. Cited in Flew and Varghese, There is a God, 114.
5. Roy Abraham Varghese, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 22. Cited in Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004),177.
6. Dietrick E. Thomsen, "The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point Fluctuation?" Science News 128 (3 August 1985), 73. Cited in J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? The Debate Between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus Books:1993), 143; Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2008), 35.
7. Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), 243. Cited in Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 177.
8. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), 203. Cited in Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 177.
9. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 189. Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 131.
10. Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot (Houghton Mifflin: New York 2007), 149. Cited in McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, 56.
11. John Polkinghorne, One World (London: SPCK, 1987), 57-58. Cited in Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 1994), 214.
12. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1983).
13. Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Harperone: 2007), 120. See cited on page 219: Davies, "Universes Galore: Where Will It All End?"
14. For a more detailed argument, see https://sites.google.com/battlegroundps.org/believing-in-jesus/universe/alone?authuser=0.
15. Paul Davies, quoted in Clive Cookson, "Scientists Who Glimpsed God," Financial Times (29 April 1995): 20. Cited in citation below.
16. Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, et al. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2007), 118.
The Evidence for God in the Universe
“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture,” writes physicist Freeman Dyson, “the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming.” (4) Agnostic physicist Robert Jastrow of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies calls the life-permitting constants of the universe “the most theistic result ever to come out of science.” (5) Nobel Prize winning astronomer Donald Page of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Science calculated that given all of the possible ways in which the constants could have obtained in a Big Bang, the odds of getting a universe capable of sustaining life is 1 in 10,000,000,000E124(6)!Because of this evidence, called the fine-tuning of the universe, Davies moved from promoting atheism in 1983 to conceding in 1984 that “the laws [of physics] … seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design,” (7) to in 1988 saying that there “is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.” (8)
Here's some more stuff he wrote: "It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out ... the seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design." (9)
"The cliche' that 'life is balanced on a knife-edge' is a staggering understatement in this case: no knife in the universe could have an edge that fine." (10)
Dr. John Polkinghorne, president of Queens College, Cambridge, wrote quite an interesting bit about the universe (and therefor God because He is proven by it): "In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the processes of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe's history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10E60. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark!" (11)
Paul Davies tells us that if the ratio of the nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by one part in 10E16, no stars could have formed. Again, the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant must be equally delicately balanced. Increase it by only one part in 10E40 and only small stars can exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will be only large stars. Both large and small stars are needed; the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces, and only the small ones burn long enough to sustain a planet with life. According to Davies, that is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away(12).
Attempting to By-pass "Divine Tinkering"
Of course, atheistic scientists aren't going to take this lying down. So, they created an idea called the multiverse -- trillions upon trillions upon trillions (you would need at least as many before there was a chance of getting ours) of universes created by some undiscovered yet theorized multiverse generator.This theory, Davies rejects. He once noted: "Multiverse proponents are often vague about how the parameter values are chosen across the defined ensemble. If there is a 'law of laws' describing how parameter values are assigned as one slips from one universe to the next, then we have only shifted the problem of cosmic biophilicity up one level. Why? First, because we need to explain where the law of laws comes from." (13)
Indeed, a common response to this idea is that any multiverse generator would have to be fine-tuned as well. I mean, come on, it would have to be more elegant in some way to produce so many worlds that can achieve the level of ours! The people who have created these generators always end up with something complex, that needs to be just right in order for life to be achievable in the grand universe ensemble(14).
Christian apologist John Lennox has created a scathing response to such a hypothesis. In fact, I do not have the prowess to shorten it without losing the power of his message:
"It is strange that a scientist of Davies's standing confesses to deciding how things started on the basis of like or dislike. That is no better in principle than someone who says he likes to think there are fairies at the bottom of his garden. Furthermore, what could possibly be meant by laws bringing themselves or the universe into existence? Theories and laws cannot themselves cause anything. Newton's laws can describe the motion of a billiard ball, but it is the cue wielded by the billiards player that sets the ball moving, not the laws. The laws help us map the trajectory of the ball's movement in the future (provided nothing external interferes), but they are powerless to move the ball, let alone bring it into existence.
"In the world in which most of us live, the simple law of arithmetic, 1 + 1 = 2, never brought anything into being by itself. It certainly has never put any money into my bank. If I put one thousand pounds into the bank and then later another one thousand pounds, the laws of arithmetic will tell me that I have two thousand pounds in the bank. But if I simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being in my bank account, I shall remain bankrupt. The world of strict naturalism, in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence, is pure fiction." (16)
Paul Davies is an incredible scientist. He has wallowed in the largest evidence for God's existence, but unfortunately decided not to believe the right conclusion. Hopefully one day, if he hasn't already, Davies will look at the resurrection of Jesus and reconsider God's role in the creation of our home, the universe.
Citations:
1. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Tyndale: 2009), 56.
2. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 177.
3. Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Harperone: 2007), 111.
4. Freeman J. Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 250. Cited in Flew and Varghese, There is a God, 114.
5. Roy Abraham Varghese, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 22. Cited in Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004),177.
6. Dietrick E. Thomsen, "The Quantum Universe: A Zero-Point Fluctuation?" Science News 128 (3 August 1985), 73. Cited in J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? The Debate Between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus Books:1993), 143; Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2008), 35.
7. Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), 243. Cited in Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 177.
8. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), 203. Cited in Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 177.
9. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 189. Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 131.
10. Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot (Houghton Mifflin: New York 2007), 149. Cited in McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, 56.
11. John Polkinghorne, One World (London: SPCK, 1987), 57-58. Cited in Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 1994), 214.
12. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1983).
13. Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Harperone: 2007), 120. See cited on page 219: Davies, "Universes Galore: Where Will It All End?"
14. For a more detailed argument, see https://sites.google.com/battlegroundps.org/believing-in-jesus/universe/alone?authuser=0.
15. Paul Davies, quoted in Clive Cookson, "Scientists Who Glimpsed God," Financial Times (29 April 1995): 20. Cited in citation below.
16. Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, et al. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2007), 118.
Comments
Post a Comment
I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.