It’s not that “God is so small” but that such uncertainties in the results of Physics are small, i.e. its not that science provides a great apologetic. I don’t have a great reason for ‘why should we pray’ in an empirical way but offer just the faith I have for this question.
At some point, I am going to start another thread to tell the story of my prayer for a Turkish translator. It was the one answered prayer that I couldn’t reject when I was struggling with atheism for 10 years. That one prayer allowed me to hang on long enough for the doubts to resolve.
I would agree that apologetics must be done where they match science and that is the problem with the yecs (young earthers). Nothing they say matches science. And ID tries to ignore that evolution can create the structures they use as examples. So, yeah, there is a sordid history out there. It doesn’t follow that all our arguments are wrong or that we shouldn’t try.
That is why I gave those quotes by Fred Hoyle.
They shouldn’t be because when they design science to match their atheist view, then we all feel compelled to believe them. Im going to try again with argument that got really sidetracked with Mitch.
Let’s ask it this way, Is physics about things we can’t observe? It didn’t used to be. In fact physicists were the preeminent empiricalists–if we can’t see it, sense it, it is in the realm of faeries, gods and other nonsense. So, let’s look at the logical consequences of two different answers to that question.
Case 1: Is physics about things we can’t observe? NO.
Then in this case, all we can refer to in our scientific explanations are things that we can observe. We can observe a beginning to the universe. Which of course raises unanswerable questions about what was before, how did it start–questions which can’t be answered without referring to things we cant observe–science hits theology at this point.
We can also observe the fine tuning of the universe which is so fine tuned that we get the feeling that the game is rigged in favor of our existence. But without referring to things we can’t observe we have no idea how this fine tuning got here. Again, science hits the wall of theology and while the answers are outside of science, it is perfectly acceptable then in this case where only empiracle things are allowed, to say God rigged the game and caused the beginning.
Case 2 Is physics about things we can’t observe? YES
In this option, we can look at the beginning and like Hoyle, if we don’t like hits of God being there, we can come up with inflation where an infinitude of universes are spawned each moment can’t say through all time but can say through whatever the higher dimensional analogue to time is. In this case we have an unobserved and unobservable inflaton field creating universe after universe and therefore, the big bang doesn’t smell of God.
Oh, and the fine tuning? Well, now, if we don’t like the idea of the stink of god on the physical constants, we can create an infinitude of unobserved universes whose constants are created by chance. and how on earth would we know if the constants are varied by chance processes or perchance our constants are fixed for all universes—we can’t know either case because it is all fiction We can’t see any of this other world out there, but if we play like it exists, then our universe isn’t special. It is just one of many and by chance we got very very very lucky in the choice of our physical constants.
We Christians are allowing them to play sleight of hand games on us–whereby they substitute their metaphysics and wrap it in a mantle of impervious science, while we cower, afraid to call cow patties, cow patties.
I’m not so sure the fine-tuning approach is the best to go with though do ascribe to a general ‘first-cause’ type of argument. You don’t actually know the ‘chance’ of anything regarding physical constants unless you have independently developed a sufficient theory (string theory?) that can account for actual probabilities.
See above, NEITHER DO THOSE USING SCIENCE TO ADVANCE THEIR ATHEISM KNOW THIS!!! But they claim it because if you have an infinitude of actual universes, and add the slick assumption that they know the constants vary with chance,(which they can’t possibly know), then they sound so scientific, when in fact they are peddling their philosophy.
Again I’m not so sure this makes much sense in light of what physicists mean when they talk about fine-tuning.
So those physicists are the only ones who can set the rules, when I think you re a physicist and I know I am one? As Feynmann said:
“ Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 307
What we have today, and what your faith in those physicists shows, is that “Science is the organized belief in experts.”
GRM: Above, I quoted an argument from Popper, who was agnostic and even he, without using quantum, felt that man’s consciousness was immaterial. If an agnostic can stand up and say that what the heck is wrong with us Christians who claim our souls will be in heaven after we die?
Philosophers don’t work on ‘feelings’ they work off of logic. That is the same basis upon which science is supposed to work. And logic is as good a way to get a handle on the nature of reality as is experiment. You should try to understand the logic in Popper’s argument for the existence of the soul. It is really a scientific argument because he starts with what we observe and draws conclusions–that is what a theoretician in physics does.