I recently read an article by Julie Roys, host of Moody Radio’s Up for Debate program. The article is entitled “Facts About the Universe That Will Blow Your Mind.”
The article goes into the fine-tuning of the universe. Essentially,
this concept notes that, if certain natural constants varied by only a
little bit, there would not be any interactive life in the universe.
For a number of theists, that is evidence for the existence of an
intelligent designer of the universe.
The article mentioned something else, though: that the earth is in a
spot of the universe that is favorable to life, when there are actually a
lot of places in the universe that are not favorable to it. Roys
“MIT Professor Max Tegmark mapped the arrangement of temperature
disturbances in radiation throughout the universe and discovered
something surprising. These disturbances are concentrated in such a way
that they reveal a very specific arrangement or ‘axis.’ And, the earth
occupies a very favored location in the axis. My guests this Saturday
disagree on exactly where the earth is located. According Robert
Sungenis, producer of the new controversial movie, The Principle, the earth lies at the center of the axis. But, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, says
the earth lies more at the edge of the axis. Either way, the earth
occupies a very favored location in the universe, which disturbs
atheistic scientists. Fascinating!”
As I read this, I thought about an atheist podcast that I heard recently. I talk about it here.
On this podcast, an atheist lady was saying that she talks to
Christians and they tell her that the universe is so finely-tuned for
life, and so there must be a God. She responds that actually there is
not that much life in the universe. Christians then say that it is such
a miracle that there is life on earth, amidst a largely hostile,
lifeless universe, and so that shows there is a God! You just can’t
win! These Christians keep changing the criteria of evidence, the
atheist lady appeared to be suggesting.
I’m a bit mixed when it comes to the argument from fine-tuning. I
think that whether or not it makes sense to people depends on their
perspective. Allow me to give an example. I am here. But things had
to turn out a certain way for me to be here. If my Dad stayed in bed
rather than going to church, he would not have met my Mom, and I would
not be here. If another sperm got to my Mom’s egg, I would not be
here. Now, I could believe that God arranged for my Dad to meet my Mom,
and for my sperm to be the one that got to my Mom’s egg. On the other
hand, though, my existence could just be the result of accidents, or of
things turning out as they did, when they could have easily turned out
otherwise. One could say that there is no iron-clad rule that we have
to be here: that we are here because, fortunately for us, things turned
out as they did, and they could have happened differently.
So earth is in a part of the universe that is conducive to life.
Does that prove there is a God, or serve as evidence for that
proposition? Or does it just highlight one reason that there is life on
earth: that the earth happened to be in a place that is conducive to
A simple argument for penal substitution
1 hour ago