03.24.07.2046
I checked some link I noticed on the ILP Homepage that had been “circulated” through other various random links to pop up with two other completely insignificant links that was in regards to the Bernard Haisch book, The God Theory. The site, found here, had a link to a YouTube video, which I clicked out of curiosity because I wanted to hear what some “scientist” had come to decide what evidence there was in astrophysics to prove the existence of a deity.
The video, found here (from the site itself), prompts evidence that Richard Dawkins had already thwarted in his argument-shattering book, The God Delusion.
The argument provided by the video shows there can only be a hypothesis for a deity, not a theory. It is for this reason that I have made this post to thwart the problems that rise from the information provided on the video about the book (not the book itself).
The video starts out by asking basic questions: “is science compatible with spirituality; can you have spirituality without any religion; can there be a purpose for the universe; a purpose for your life?” The video goes on to say that “yes” is the answer for all those questions. Such blind assumptions are silly when based on the evidence that this “yes” was given for.
The video prompts its “evidence” being “the number of properties that are just right for life to evolve” in the universe. This is a reference to Martin Rees’ book, Just Six Numbers, which discusses six “constants” necessary for our universe to end up exactly how it has. Unfortunately for Haisch and Rees, Dawkins already defeats this issue in his book: pages 141-151 (if you don’t have it, get it).
The video goes on saying the “necessary properties” are “amazingly just right to be conducive to life”. Apparently it is not in the imagination of these people that life would exist in another kind of universe different from ours and that those lifeforms evolved differently than we have. The video assumes, but does not confirm that we could not exist in any other universe than the one we are currently in because ours is “just right”. There’s a problem with that “just right” idea. One need only to listen to Neil de Grasse Tyson to find out how “imperfect” our universe is for us. Stupid Design shows that there cannot be an Intelligent Designer of the universe we currently reside in.
The video implies that a deity should exist because “really intelligent people” think so… the god of gaps is found most abundantly in our history of science. Of course, it then spends the last half of its running time making assumptions based on the assumption that an intelligent designer exists… but wait, this intelligence is claimed to be not only infinite, but outside of space and time as well with infinite potential! “What would such an intelligence do with infinite potential?” the video asks… the answer is silly. It’s so silly, that it goes as far to imply that we are manifestations of the “infinite intelligence”, creating this deity’s experiences with our lives. If it goes this far, why does it have to be “one god”, why not many? There was no claim that it had to be the Judeo-Christian god, or Thoth, or Zues… or anyone; just that it is an intelligent designer.
Without flatly saying so, this video sneaks its slithery fake science in to your thoughts to imply that intelligent design is equally defensible as the random multiverse argument. Sure, you can believe in both science and some kind of deity to fill the gaps; in fact, you can even believe that the universe has a purpose… but the evidence is so vastly insufficient, it is practically impossible to prove anything about the origin of the universe. “God” is not a theory… it is a hypothesis, and without sufficient evidence, it has failed.
Uhm… yeah.
