We saw that a more honest appraisal--one using more of the parameters by now identified as finely-tuned for life--yields the following with regard to the probability of finding a planet that could support life:
less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion exists that even one such [life-supporting] planet would occur anywhere in the universe.This probability--one chance in 10 to the 144th power--takes into account the existence of (a maximum possible number of) 10 to the 22nd power planets.
We are used to referring to extremely long odds as "astronomical," and while that word would have some pun value here, it is woefully inadequate. Physicists generally consider any probability that is less than 10 to the 50th power as equivalent to impossible. And the probability we have arrived at is orders of magnitude less still.
Dawkins' disingenuous attempt to discuss the anthropic principle led to his concluding that life might be found on a billion planets in our universe. But an honest attempt to interact with the identified design parameters yields a far different conclusion--that finding even one life-support planet in this universe would be impossible if naturalism were true.
(The best book I know for information about the designed-for-life characteristics of the universe is Hugh Ross' The Creator and the Cosmos.)
No comments:
Post a Comment