Chances of Life outside Earth - Split from "concept of GOD in science"

[Curiousabout]

New york times December 25 2014

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself

 

!

Moderator Note

 

I have edited the quote down to the short section that is available on the Wall Street Journal's Website - the rest is behind a paywall as far as I can tell. We cannot allow potentially copyrighted material to be posted. If there is open access to this article please provide a link.

 

Edited January 4, 2015 by imatfaal
To remove copyrighted material

[swansont]

 

New york times December 25 2014

 

…

 

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

…

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

…

For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

 

 

It was the WSJ, not the NYT http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

 

None of these claims are backed up, so it's impossible to properly attack them. Are all of the parameters independent? We don't know. But if they aren't, then these probability calculations are off.

 

As far as the fine-tuning physics goes, there's the glaring assumption that these are also random combinations, and we don't know that's the case. Even if that's so, one can look at this from another perspective: there are an infinite number of combinations of the fundamental constants that would work. (e.g. take what we have and multiply every one by an arbitrary value). Also, as long as we're pulling arguments from places where the sun doesn't shine and using claims that can't be proven or disproven, if there an infinite number of universes, we go right back to the anthropic principle.

[Curiousabout]

I did not start this post. My response was placed on another thread as a talking point for a question posted under the religion section. I understand the fact that you should accurately post reference material. I mistakenly titled the article Newyork times. I am sorry for that mistake. The information is for reference only to the original question. Concept of God in science. My opinion is that science does not prove or disprove the existence of a God. Science involves viable explanations for how things work, Religion relies on faith in a higher power, through personal experience while living a life. arguing the issue to its conclusion doesnt change a thing. People will or will not believe in what they believe.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Curiousabout