Harvard scientist claims mathematical formula could prove 'God is real'
economictimes.indiatimes.comIn short: an interesting idea according to which there would be a puzzling phenomenon:
> At the heart of Dr. Soon's theory is the "fine-tuning argument" - the idea that the universe's physical laws are so perfectly calibrated to support life [...] The formula, first proposed by ... Paul Dirac, highlights how certain cosmic constants align with breathtaking precision
If anybody finds good references (which articles, books etc.)...
Some related links: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29560707
In exchange for enough funding, you can find someone who will tell you what you want to hear.
But not an argument. The content is: some have felt that the laws of Nature look very non-random. It is an interesting view. The article just does a disservice by only mentioning the matter instead of showing it - through examples, bibliography etc.
But not an argument.
Neither is "god did it".
Anyway, it was apparently Dirac's view that there is an argument around it:
> It could be that it is extremely difficult to start life. It might be that it is so difficult to start a life that it has happened only once among all the planets... Let us consider, just as a conjecture, that the chance of life starting when we have got suitable physical conditions is 10^-100. I don't have any logical reason for proposing this figure, I just want you to consider it as a possibility. Under those conditions ... it is almost certain that life would not have started. And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence...
This from the Kragh (1990), Dirac: A Scientific Biography. When the Archive will make books in the Library available again, it's there; otherwise, the paragraph is copied on Wikipedia.
"It could be ... it might be ... I don't have any logical reason, etc.."
Doesn't sounds like much of an argument to me.
What it does sound like is someone who has already accepted a conclusion and is grasping for some way, any way to justify it.
Given the quote, and given your interpretation of the quote, it seems that you are feeling instead of thinking (you have no hook there to suggest a conclusion is taken). Look at it rationally and it is just that: "If phenomenon P inclines to non-autonomous than adjutant A suggested". Dirac was hardly a feeler - definitely a thinker.
That we did not touch, and given the very broad vague suggestion about the specifics of such non-randomness, and the very broad vague (ungiven) definition of said "Author", to speak about it without details would be like building with concrete over water.
"Hypoteses non fingo" ( ~~ Isaac Newton)
...especially true of lacking, non-analytical speech.
Oh, yeah. I'm totally gonna click on this bait. :-/
Amount of atheists or agnostics converted by this article: 0