Paradigm God Summary
GOD ENCODED FORMULA 27 INTO THE VACUUM COMPUTER THAT BINDS BASE9—-PHYSICAL-CONSTANTS—-BASE10. THIS BINDS THE REFERENCE FRAME BETWEEN THE OBSERVER-OBSERVED AND GENERATED THE LOGIC BIG BANG THAT INTURN COLLAPSED INTO THE PHYSICAL BIG BANG.
Paradigm-God Summary: The following two sets of quotations are composed by Rich Deem taken from the Internet suggested the indication that our universe is pre-designed. The design, as argued in this book, is created / co-created by a set of common involution logic encoded in God’s vacuum computer. I use the word God because there exists no term to identify the input of number 9 that started this self-programming vacuum computer via symmetry breaks into the three-octagon coordinate system. The word God is as good as any other term such as the Creator, the Inputer, and so on. The Who-What of God is unknowable, since He, She or It is outside of our universe and thus outside of human understandings.
This universe started with a First Cause by God’s input of intelligence into number 9 and it’s embedded in three Octagons as an absolute set of coordinates. In this First Cause, the thought octagon contains the free-will of God. Embedded in number 9 are the involution logic for pre-post heaven octagons and the logic-language for His self-programmable vacuum computer. This set of logic [e.g., yin-yang lines] represents the universe’s (initial-conditions)—(Evolution-logic)—(Final-conditions) and became a set of locks. The Second Cause has to do with co-creations by the Thought Octagon in an observer-observed state that satisfies the lock-key relationships. Entropy is those misinformed logic differences between involution and evolution. This set of locks became the fine tuning instructions. Involution—Entropy—Evolution are encoded in the computer connected to the singularity of Mind—Soul—Spirit & Logic—Information—Energy crossovers.
Quotations
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html
Extreme Fine Tuning – Dark Energy or the Cosmological Constant
by Rich Deem
Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe. By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.
Introduction
The recent Nature study popularized in the press regarding the nature of the universe has confirmed some of the original studies involving supernovae type 1.1 The supernovae results suggested that there was a “springiness” to space, an energy density often referred to as “dark energy” or the “cosmological constant,” that causes the universe to expand at a faster rate the more it expands. Often described as an “anti-gravity” force, it doesn’t really oppose matter, but only affects matter as it is associated with the fabric of space.
How much fine tuning?
How does this discovery impact atheists? Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in
1:10120
which is:
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
Introduction
The constants of the laws of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments about what scientists think about these numbers, see the Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe in page 208.
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
Degree of Fine Tuning
Recent studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as “dark energy”). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurements not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.
The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:
The number
1:1037
is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are
1:1037
(p. 115)
The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas – no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.
Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogens is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
1. Strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry. If smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry.
2. Weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. If smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible.
3. Gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
4. Electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. If lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support. If smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements.
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry. If smaller: same as above.
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation. If smaller: same as above.
8. Expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form. if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed.
9. Entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies. If smaller: no proto-galaxies would form.
10. Mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form. If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements.
11. Velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support. If slower; Stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support.
12. Age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy. If younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.
13. Initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed If less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space.
14. Average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material. If smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun’s orbit.
15. Density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit. If less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material.
16. Average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form. If smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life.
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields. If smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun.
18. Decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation. If smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life.
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life. If smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life.
20. Ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life. If smaller: same as above.
21. Decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars. If faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry.
22. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements. If lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes.
23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation. If lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation.
24. Polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life. If smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result.
25. Supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
If too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form.
26. White dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry. If too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life. If formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production. If formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry.
27. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form. If smaller: no galaxies would form.
28. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible. if smaller: same result.
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable. If larger: same result.
30. Mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form. If larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense.
31. Big Bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly. If larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. Size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly. If larger: same result.
33. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable. If larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable.
34. Cosmological constant if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Quotes
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe
Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The “God of the gaps” was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design – not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely – something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
“I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God–and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”(1)
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of “supernatural plan” or “Agency” behind it. Here is what they say:
The quotes
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)
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.” (3)
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”. (4)
Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)
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.” (7)
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?” (8)
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.” (9)
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.” (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)
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.” (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)
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’.” (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)
Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)
There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.” (27)
References
1 Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
2 Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
3 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.
4 Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
5 Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
6 Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
7 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
8 Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
9 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
10 Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
11 Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
12 Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
13 Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
14 Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
15 Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
16 Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
17 Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
18 Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
19 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
20 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
21 Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
22 Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
23 Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, “The Creation”, U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991): 56-64.
24 McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
25 Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
26 Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
27 Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.
