1966年時代雜誌發表了一份封面故事問：“難道上帝死了”封面反映，很多人已經接受了文化的敘述上帝是過時的事實 - 即，隨著科學進步有一個“上帝”不太需要解釋宇宙。事實證明，雖然，神的死亡傳言為時過早。事實上，也許是他的存在最好的論據來自 - 所有的地方 - 科學本身。
這裡的故事：同年時代特色的現在著名的標題，天文學家卡爾·薩根宣布有兩個必要條件的行星支持生命：在合適的明星，和行星從恆星適當的距離。由於在宇宙中大約千的九次方的行星 - 這就是1後面24個零 - 應該有大約septillion行星 - 這是1後面的零21 - 能夠支持生命。
有了這樣壯觀的勝算，科學家們樂觀地認為，外星智慧，其英文縮寫稱為搜索，搜尋地外文明，一個雄心勃勃的項目在1960年的推出，肯定很快把一些東西。隨著一個巨大的無線電望遠鏡網絡，科學家們聽了活像編碼智能信號。但隨著歲月的流逝，從宇宙的沉默聲震耳欲聾。截至2014年，研究人員已經發現正是bubkis，虛無縹緲，接近零，這是說的零後面跟著零無限多的。
發生了什麼？由於我們對宇宙的知識的增加，很明顯，有，事實上，生活需要的遠遠更多的因素 - 更不用說智慧生命 - 比薩根認為。他的兩個參數，增長到10，然後20，然後50，這意味著潛在的生命支持行星的數目相應減少。該數字下降到幾千個星球，並保持在直線下降。
即使是SETI的支持者承認問題的存在。彼得·申克爾在2006年的片斷為懷疑察問，那強烈申明無神論雜誌中寫道：“在新的發現和見解光我們應該靜靜地承認，初步估計可能不再是站不住腳的。。。。。”
今天，有超過200所必需的地球已知的參數來維持生命 - 它的每一個人必須完全滿足，或者整體的失敗。例如，沒有像木星一個巨大的，豐富的重力星球就近客場戰平小行星，地球會更喜歡星際飛鏢比青翠的圓球，它是。
簡單地說，宇宙中的生命對抗的賠率是驚人的。
然而，我們在這裡，不僅是現有的，但談論現有的。能占到什麼呢？可以將這些許多參數中的每一個都通過事故中完全滿足？在什麼時候它是公平的承認，它是科學本身表明，我們不能隨意力量的結果？不假設智力創造，其實需要比相信的信心遠不如這些完美的條件下維持生命的地球正好打不可思議的機率有多大？
別急，還有更精彩的。
與宇宙都存在所需的微調相比，在一個星球上存在的生命所必需的微調是什麼。例如，天體物理學家現在知道了四種基本力的價值觀 - 引力，電磁力，而“強”和“弱”的核力量 - 都在大爆炸後所確定的第二不到百萬分之一。改變這四個值非常輕微的任何一個與宇宙因為我們知道它是不可能存在的。
例如，如果強核力與電磁力之間的比例已經由最小的，不可思議的分數的寸土一直關機後再沒有明星可能都形成。所有其他必要條件乘以一個參數，並針對存在的宇宙的可能性是如此的心臟，stoppingly天文數字的，它所有的“剛好”的概念，違背了常識。它會像擲硬幣，並讓它拿出頭10三次方倍成一排。我不認為如此。
霍伊爾，誰創造了這個詞的天文學家“大爆炸”說，他的無神論被這些發展“大大動搖”。作為世界上最知名的理論物理學家保羅·戴維斯曾表示，“外觀設計是壓倒性的。”即使是後期克里斯托弗·希欽斯，無神論的最積極的支持者之一，承認“毫無疑問微調的說法是對方的最有力的論據。”數學約翰·倫諾克斯博士牛津大學教授曾表示，“我們越了解我們的宇宙，更多的假設，有一個造物主。漲勢信譽的我們為什麼在這裡的最好說明。”
所有時代最偉大的奇蹟是宇宙。這是所有奇蹟，一個不可避免地指向東西的奇蹟 - 或某人 - 超越自身。
我埃里克梅塔克薩斯為普拉格大學。
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: "Is God Dead?" The cover reflected the fact that many people had accepted the cultural narrative that God is obsolete -- that, as science progresses there is less need for a "God" to explain the universe. It turns out, though, that the rumors of God's death were premature. In fact, perhaps the best arguments for his existence come from -- of all places -- science itself.
Here's the story: The same year Time featured its now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two necessary criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion planets in the universe -- that's 1 followed by 24 zeros -- there should have been about septillion planets -- that's 1 followed by 21 zeros -- capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, scientists were optimistic that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, known by its initials, SETI, an ambitious project launched in the 1960's, was sure to turn up something soon. With a vast radio telescopic network, scientists listened for signals that resembled coded intelligence. But as the years passed, the silence from the universe was deafening. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis, nada, zilch, which is to say zero followed by an infinite number of zeros.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were, in fact, far more factors necessary for life -- let alone intelligent life -- than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10, then 20, and then 50, which meant that the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine that strongly affirms atheism: "In light of new findings and insights . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable."
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life--every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. For example, without a massive, gravity-rich planet like Jupiter nearby to draw away asteroids, Earth would be more like an interstellar dartboard than the verdant orb that it is.
Simply put, the odds against life in the universe are astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfectly met by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that it is science itself that suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions in fact require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds?
But wait, there's more.
The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces -- gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces -- were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one of these four values ever so slightly and the universe as we know it could not exist.
For instance, if the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest, inconceivable fraction then no stars could have formed at all. Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. I don't think so.
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term "big bang," said that his atheism was "greatly shaken" by these developments. One of the world's most renowned theoretical physicists, Paul Davies, has said that "the appearance of design is overwhelming". Even the late Christopher Hitchens, one of atheism's most aggressive proponents, conceded that "without question the fine-tuning argument was the most powerful argument of the other side." Oxford University professor of Mathematics Dr. John Lennox has said "the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here."
The greatest miracle of all time is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that inescapably points to something -- or Someone -- beyond itself.
from: Eric Metaxas for Prager University
沒有留言:
發佈留言