There are four great miracles that we have physical evidence of readily available to us:
1) The coming into existence of the universe. Things do not begin without a cause.
That's true, things do not begin without a cause, but you call the existence of the universe a "miracle" which suggests you know the cause.
It'w true I believe I know the cause. But even you can know that there is a cause that is other than the universe. That is a first logical step. You've taken it, have you not when you said "true, things do not begin without a cause"? Clearly then you believe in a realm not of our universe with something or someone there that can bring our universe into existence.
2) The universe that came into existence was against incredible odds fine-tuned in such a way that life can exist in it. The best cosmologists testify to the truth of this.
Against incredible odds to you and me and everyone else since no one has an answer as to what was "banged" in the "big bang".
Fine tuned? How do you know that?? I don't think cosmologists, as a group, testify to anything about the universe being "fine tuned". Does Carl Sagan? The words "fine tuned" are your own attempt to bring something supernatural into the picture..
The fine-tuning isn't something I thought up. It does indeed come from cosmologists - here are some quotations I have copied and saved for just this situation:
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
As you can see, the fine tuning is a real phenomenom and since you've already agreed there is a cause of the universe in some realm beyond it, that cause must also be responsible for this fine tuning. Another step. The cause that caused the universe to come into existence wills that life be able to exist in it.
3) The beginning of life by spontaneous generation is impossible, just as it impossible that the computer in front of you spontaneously generated.
No one says life began as spontaneous generation, another attempt of yours to explain things with something supernatural.
There is no evidence for anything supernatural, however, if you choose to believe that, be my quest.
Life is an incredibly complex process based on information encoded in dna. It was either made, that is intentionally assembled, or spontaneously generated. Two choices. Maybe you'd like it better if I said spontaneously developed. The people trying to prove the spontaneously development concept divide into protein first or dna/rna first camps or those who realzie neither are possible and simply push the problem off to another world(panspermia - like Hoyle, Crick, and De Duve). Neither the protein first or rna first work logically.
"The paradox is seldom mentioned that enzymes are required to define or generate the reaction network, and the network is required to synthesize the enzymes and their component amino acids. There is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences. Thus, when we make the distinction between the origin of the genetic code and its evolution, we find the origin of the genetic code is unknowable." Hubet Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life.
Wo the only alternative plausible alternative to life being made is the panspermia idea - that life originated elsewhere and got here by natural means somehow. Thats actually the most plausible idea that doesn't involve an intelligent designer/assembler. And its a dodge for it doesn't explain how life began elsewhere.
You'er right one has a choice here to believe or not believe in God. But there is no rational reason to choose the not believe in God choice.
4) The biochemical process that is life has become couscious, self-aware, with a mind and a will of its own.
These things are both evidence of a Creator and evidence the Creator is deeply interested in the beings he has created.
Correct, but these things are not evidence of a creator, a god to you since you capitalize it. You are not smart enough, nor am I, to know that there is such a "Creator".
What are you talking about. We resolved that in the first step.
I gather you a religious person.....may I ask your religion?
I'm a Christian. Do you need to pin it down any more than that? |
