Danny, I wouldn’t use the word perverted, dilettante is better. His
excessive use of scientific equations and other evidence of law-like properties, such as of molecules, do not proportionally
advance his thesis. The use of these equations is to convince the audience that
he is authority on the topic of laws of physics—which as an engineer, he isn’t. Thus
I choose the word dilettante for to describe Bradley.
Like all subtitles which attempt to make
the world much different than it is, there are fundamental flaws. Bradley has
three theses: (1) that god is required to establish the lawful relationships
of matter. (2) That god is required to establish the atomic conditions such that
there would be long, complex chains of carbon molecules suitable for organic life—an application of (1). (3) That god created the earth and solar system in such a way that conditions would be sufficiently stable
over billions of years so as to have life evolve into sentient beings.
If a set of things have the same properties
and that these properties govern their behavior, then the relationships are mathematical.
For example atoms have both weak and strong atomic forces, which arise from the very nature of subatomic particles—which
all atoms have—then there will be patterns of properties according to the number of subatomic properties. In other words, matter will establish its own lawful patterns arising from it very nature. For this reason most physicists do not see the need for a god hypothesis to establish the laws of physics.
The carbon atom doesn’t prove that
there are gods, no more than that stars proves there are gods. For one thing
there is nothing unique in so far as to support the hypothesis that a special intervention was necessary for the carbon atom. Carbon chains happen to be best suited for development of life given the long and
varied chains it forms. What works best will be used. However, life can develop under much different conditions. There
are bacteria deep within the earth and at sea vents where the temperature rises to 400 degrees centigrade there are several
different species including sea worms. There is not a need for the god hypothesis
to explain carbon and complex life, because evolution makes use of the best tools available.
His third argument as to the earth being
specially placed so as to produce for 4 billion years conditions suitable for sentient life is disposed of by numbers. This planet is a rare bird, the only one in our solar system, and probably very few
similar to circling other stars. However, astronomers have observed that it is
common for stars to have planets. Thus there are zillions of planets in this
universe. The conditions suitable for sentient life probably exist on millions
of planets.
There is a fourth argument never brought
up but rather repeatedly Bradley affirms the theistic conclusion. He begs the question of whether or nor natural process can
account for what we have. God must have selected the constants, because they
are so perfectly in balance in nature. It is like the carvings on Mt. Rushmore which is the work of Gutzon Borglum. However, the vast majority of physicists and biologists believe the god hypothesis
is unnecessary. For unlike Mt. Rushmore there are many marks of
natural processes. Moreover, there are no Mt Rushmore’s in nature among
the mountains.
This hypothetical sentient designer has
done a terrible job. First he has created a universe for a grain of sand to contain
sentient life. Second he took over 12 billion years for such life to develop. (Life which he created has but a few percentages of humans that follow his commands
and sing his praise.) Third, he could have made sentient life less violent and
more intelligent; viz. less chimp like. Given what we have, the reasonable conclusion
is atheism.
Where did god come from? And how did god become capable of creating the universe? Having
god as a creator, creates more problems then it solves. To say he created the
universe and life raises the questions of when, where, how, and which life forms. The
god hypothesis creates additional questions: where did the god come from, how
did he get his powers, when did god come into existence, where does he reside, and when will he vanish?—or did he already? And if there is one god, why not many? What
pleases god? Is he still involved? Is
he a Hindu, Jew, Christian, or something else? And most importantly what is the
hard evidence for the conclusions to these questions. We don’t have museum-quality
evidence, just imagination—nothing we can grasp. Bradley has created the
chicken and egg regression; and his egg, smells of hydrogen sulfide.
Professor
Victor Stenger has demolished the first two parts of this argument. (The link has one of Stenger’s papers.) Stenger wrote a computer program for which the constants of physics could be changed, and to which the
results are calculated. These results show that there is no precise setting of
the constants of physics for a universe like this one to exist. Bradley is aware
of Professor Stenger’s books, yet he never addresses this refutation.
Bradley is selling faith to an audience of believers; Stenger
to an audience of atheists. Given the sum total of conditions, the atheist position
is nearly more likely to be correct than the theist argument; and if it is for the Christian god that is the creator, then
infinitely more likely.
