Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SomeMichGuy · M
Hmmmm...the problem with this report is that Mr. Metaxas doesn't understand information he heard/read/was told about which makes the real point he ought to be making...
He says that the special conditions for a _planet_ to have life in this universe are far more special than we once thought, which is wrong, AFAIK.
The REAL point is that the particular set of parameters which DO exist in THIS universe--and which allow for enough long-term stability for life to not only form/emerge, but also long enough for intelligent[ish...😉] life to arise and even travel into.and observe space in such a way as to try to investigate comological questions--are seemingly very unlikely, from one point of view which has taken hold of the scientific imagination of our era.
The fact is that reality is very well explained by our mathematical models of it, informed by physics and our investigations of natural phenomena. The math is so real that numbers which fall out of, e.g., solving for the energy levels of hydrogenic [1-electron] atoms end up being real "quantum numbers", and all manner of other mathematical info also is validated in reality.
So some ppl have gotten really excited about the idea of a "multi-verse", not in the Marvel Cinematic Universe sense, but in the "honest-to-God, we REALLY think this might be the case" sense...
It starts with quantum-based notions but then generalizes to the fact that we have a set of parameters--the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, etc.--which effectively describe our Universe, and so, if altered, would describe different Universes... If these parameters are able to vary, then being a set which results in us isn't a surprise for our given Universe, but it makes our given Universe _very_ special, since most arbitrary values of the parameters simply won't allow for life to emerge, etc.
THAT is the point he SHOULD have made. His inability to understand what he read/saw/was told really calls into question his legitimacy regarding any "science" on which he reports.
It would be surprising if one could NOT find at least one author with such an opinion, regardless of it being based in fact or misunderstood fact.
He says that the special conditions for a _planet_ to have life in this universe are far more special than we once thought, which is wrong, AFAIK.
The REAL point is that the particular set of parameters which DO exist in THIS universe--and which allow for enough long-term stability for life to not only form/emerge, but also long enough for intelligent[ish...😉] life to arise and even travel into.and observe space in such a way as to try to investigate comological questions--are seemingly very unlikely, from one point of view which has taken hold of the scientific imagination of our era.
The fact is that reality is very well explained by our mathematical models of it, informed by physics and our investigations of natural phenomena. The math is so real that numbers which fall out of, e.g., solving for the energy levels of hydrogenic [1-electron] atoms end up being real "quantum numbers", and all manner of other mathematical info also is validated in reality.
So some ppl have gotten really excited about the idea of a "multi-verse", not in the Marvel Cinematic Universe sense, but in the "honest-to-God, we REALLY think this might be the case" sense...
It starts with quantum-based notions but then generalizes to the fact that we have a set of parameters--the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, etc.--which effectively describe our Universe, and so, if altered, would describe different Universes... If these parameters are able to vary, then being a set which results in us isn't a surprise for our given Universe, but it makes our given Universe _very_ special, since most arbitrary values of the parameters simply won't allow for life to emerge, etc.
THAT is the point he SHOULD have made. His inability to understand what he read/saw/was told really calls into question his legitimacy regarding any "science" on which he reports.
It would be surprising if one could NOT find at least one author with such an opinion, regardless of it being based in fact or misunderstood fact.