Fine Tuning part 2: Answers to Multiverse

Answers to Fine Tuning

The argument is that none of these forces and examples really prove design because given infinite chances there will eventually be a universe that gets it right, we just happen to be it. Now scientists theorize that there are billions or even an infinite set of alternate universes arising all the time. That gives us the infinite chances.

Answer I. Have to know hit rate for life bearing universes.

Unless we know the rate at which life bearing is produced, just having a bunch of universes proves nothing.
This applies both to parallel universes and to planets of our own universe.

The new research puts the estimate at 22% of stars that have earth-like planets.[1] That certainly seems like a disproof of the FT since it makes life bearing planets common. The problem is as has been hinted at we can't say these are life bearing. Earth like Just means size and temperature....Size can vary and fool us. Temperature is very important to know too.
The temperature of the plan…

Fine Turning Argument for God

The argument says simply that the universe must be structured in very exact ways to produce life. It's so exacting as to be totally improbable. Because it's so improbable that gives us a good reason to think the game is fixed. This differs from the ordinary design argument because we have something to compare it to, all that is not the target level,

A. Universe Displays purposive order Max Planck (1858-1947), Nobel Prize winner and founder of modern physics. 5 "According to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature, a certain order prevails--one independent of the human mind . . . this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe to which both man and nature are subservient."

......(1)laws have simplicity and elegance.
"The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a…

The Religious A priori


(1) Scientific reductionism loses phenomena by re-defining the nature of sense data and qualia.

(2)There are other ways of Knowing than scientific induction

(3) Religious truth is apprehended phenomenoloigcally, thus religion is not a scientific issue and cannot be subjected to a materialist critque

(4) Religion is not derived from other disciplines or endeavors but is a approch to understanding in its own right

Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms and not according to the dictates or other disciplines

In my dealings with atheist in debate and dialogue I find that they are often very committed to an empiricist view point. Over and over again I hear the refrain "you can't show one single unequivocal demonstration of scientific data that proves a God exists." This is not a criticism. It's perfectly understandable; science has become the umpire of reality. It is to scientific demonstration that we appear for a large swath of questions concerning…

A Theory Without a Ghost of a Chance

Resurrection of Christ by Noël Coypel, 1700,  using a hovering depiction of Jesus

The "no Body" theory says that Jesus' resurrection  was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit. This view is much prized by a certain segment of theological liberalism. Some liberals can't bring themselves to buck naturalism (I on the other hand am a  liberal of a different sort). This view was Championed byHans Grass's classic Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte.[1] The answer, of course, is that Paul's belief was the same as the Jewish belief of the day, that Messiah was to raise all of fallen Israel at the end of times. This was to be a bodily resurrection. Paul sees Jesus as the "first fruits" or the hearld of this mass resurrection in the end. But why would he speak of a bodily resurrection for us (which clearly he does, as we see in the quotation at the top from 1 Cor. 15) and not for Jesus himself? The argument is that