Occam’s razor is a well regarded guideline for life. It is also observed in the sciences. More about that razor later. Right now I want to talk about math.
Mathematics is an integral part of science. If you were to talk to any scientist in private, when they had their guard down, they would never for a moment dispute the importance of math in science. How many times have you seen the scientist at a blackboard that is covered by mathematical equations? Math and science are inseparable.
There are 7,000,000,000 people on earth. How much would you be willing to bet that if I randomly picked ONE person living anywhere on earth without telling you anything about them, that you could get in a plane, boat, car, bicycle, walk and pick out that one person correctly on the first try?
That would be a 7,000,000,000 to 1 bet. Those are pretty slim odds.
Science is a lot more generous. They give anything a 1 in 10 to the 50th power chance before they call it impossible. (that’s a 10 with a little 50 above and to the right of it)
That looks like this. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Those are far slimmer odds. Still, like I said, science tries to cut every possibility a break.
But science draws the line at some point. At some point science determines that an event is mathematically impossible.
Wellllllll…….. there are exceptions!
If your “science” happens to be the pseudo-science of evolution then all bets disappear and math goes flying into the waste paper basket like your last lottery ticket.
In his book, “Just Six Numbers”, Martin Rees gives a developed account of six specific numbers that must be within a very, very limited range in order for life to exist. (1)
They are:
N (Ratio of gravity to electrical force) 1:10 to the 36th power.
Anything less and life as we know it doesn’t exist.
E (Coupling constant for the strong force)
The value is 0.007
If E was 0.006 or 0.008 we could not exist
Omega (density of the universe)
A slight change higher and the universe would have collapsed
A slight change lower and galaxies and stars would not have formed
Lambda (energy density of the universe)
Lambda is very small. Otherwise it would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming
Q (Energy to break up galactic clusters)
1/100,000 in value
Even smaller and the universe would be inert
Much larger and the universe would be a violent place
D (Spatial dimensions)
D = 3
Life couldn’t exist if it were 2 or 4.
With the exception of the number of spatial dimensions these are all either very large or very small numbers. If any of these numbers were slightly different, life would be impossible.
Yet they must all exist virtually precisely as they are.
The odds of that happening are calculated by multiplying together the probability of each of those separate events happening. Now we’re talking a really huge number!
Agnostic physicist Paul Davies tells us, “Had the explosion (of the Big Bang) differed in strength at the outset by only one part in 10 to the 60th power, the universe we now perceive would not exist.”
Oxford University physics professor Roger Penrose (a self-proclaimed agnostic) gave a figure of 10,000,000,000 to the 123rd power for the uniqueness of the Big Bang singularity.
The likelihood of certain proteins developing on earth has been determined to be a chance of 1 in 10 to the 237th power.
To get your head around a figure like that it is more than all of the electrons in the known universe.
And you thought picking the one human out of all of those living on earth was a task! Heck, that’s a piece of cake. Try taking a space ship ride throughout the universe and choosing the one electron I have selected…… Careful now! Are you sure it’s that one!
Evolutionists don’t bother with the bet. It’s not that they question the math.
They don’t.
However, with their philosophical mindset they have already determined that we evolved. “We’re here aren’t we?”
Their solution to the massive improbability that our universe meets all of the above requirements?
There are an INFINITE number of universes that co-exist side by side. They are like an infinite number of bubbles. Some are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Some may crash into us, but we wouldn’t even know it. Those two particular universes would merely pass through each other uneventfully.
But here is the important thing. Because there are an infinite number of universes at least one of them must meet the necessary criteria mentioned above. One would be able to support life as we know it. And we just happen to live in that universe.
We can’t see those other universes.
We can’t test this hypothesis.
These scientists actually say that we are in this universe because it is the only one that can support us.
Duh…. well I guess that would have to be true.
Would God create us and place us in a universe that would not support us.
Duh… well I guess not.
Even if this crazy theory is true it only speaks to why we are in this universe. It does not begin to speak to how we got here.
It is so incredibly evident that evolutionists can only accept a totally natural explanation for life. It is so incredibly obvious that they accept evolution as fact because, after all, “What else is there?”
By the way, the amount of proof that exists for this theory?
NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, NONE, NULL SET, ZIP,
Now there is a number I can understand!
And now for the shave.
Occam’s razor says that the simplest explanation is the best explanation.
Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, and lex parsimoniae in Latin, which means law of parsimony) is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5
Option #1.
We exist among an infinite number of parallel universes each of which is unseen, each of which developed in a like manner to our already unknowable universe, each of which occupies the same time/space continuum, everyone of which is outside of our own and is untouchable and is unknowable, and each requiring an exhaustive amount of matter and energy….. totaling an INFINITE amount of matter and energy.
Option #2.
One God
Anybody need a razor?
(1) Evidence Unseen – James M. Rochford
What's in your backyard? 