There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Our postmodern relativism and constructivism, combined with our technology, threaten to bring on the collapse of our shared reality, which would make our democracy and our social order impossible. So warns an expert in her prediction for 2026.
We’ve been making predictions about what 2026 might hold–and there is still time to make yours (go here)–and so have other publications.
Politico asked experts in various fields, “What is the unpredictable, unlikely but entirely plausible thing that could happen in 2026 that could completely upend American life?”
One of the answers jumped out at me as describing well what our relativism, constructivism, and reality-bending technology can lead to.
‘Society enters a state of psychosocial freefall’
The shift in this scenario is from today’s highly polarized but still shared world — where groups interpret events differently — to a fractured reality in which the events themselves cannot be verified, origins cannot be traced, and no authoritative source can prove what is real. Instead of opposing political narratives and conspiracy theories, society enters a state of psychosocial freefall where AI creates a series of parallel realities. It will mark a transition not from disagreement to deeper disagreement, but from disagreement to the collapse of a shared reality altogether.
This leads to the upending of the midterm elections. Ultra-realistic deepfakes flood the infosphere. One week before the election, a deepfake shows one candidate accepting a bribe from a foreign government. Minutes later, another deepfake shows the opposing candidate calling for the abolition of elections. Both clips go viral before fact-checkers can respond. AI instantly generates thousands of supporting “eyewitness accounts,” each with hyper-realistic voices, backstories and social profiles. In the following days, AI-generated “leaked documents” allege voting manipulation, foreign hacks and corrupted ballots. The public no longer mistrusts the government. They mistrust reality.
Democratic institutions prove incapable of responding at digital speed. While verification protocols are debated, AI systems generate thousands of new, contradictory narratives every hour. Trust erodes. Civic responsibility withers. Fragmented truth enclaves harden into antagonistic tribes. Citizens become more apathetic. Institutional authority collapses. The vacuum is quickly filled by fast-moving authoritarian actors and ever-more powerful tech platforms that step in as the new arbiters of “truth.”
As I have been showing in my books Postmodern Times and Post-Christian, the dominant worldviews of our time have already rejected the notion of objective truth in favor of relativism (“what’s true for you may not be true for me”) and constructivism (“we create our own truths”). This has been a philosophy. But now, with AI and virtual reality, we have the technology to actualize that philosophy!
And if we all have our own truths and truth is nothing more than a construction–whether by an individual’s choices or by a culture or by a group in power–then we have no “shared reality” that makes society or even human relationships possible!
Orange here cite the political implications of this mindset. There can be no democracy, no self-government, no community, no social identity whatsoever if there is a “collapse of a shared reality.” There can be, I suppose, “authoritarian actors” who impose their reality by exercising power over the rest of us, though this is just capitulating to the postmodernist “critical theory.”
What we need is to recover the objectivity of truth. Not just the scientific, rationalistic view of truth that modernism tried, which led to the reaction of postmodernism. A truth that includes, in addition to physical reality, moral and spiritual reality. That’s the kind of shared reality that can bring people together in relationships, societies, cultures, and civilizations.
The human brain contains ~86 billion neurons and performs 10¹⁶ to 10¹⁸ operations per second, showcasing unmatched processing power.
It adapts and rewires itself, learning from experience, making it a self-learning, self-organizing system.
Consciousness, a key feature of the brain, cannot be explained by materialism, according to Stephen Meyer.
The brain exhibits specified complexity and functional integration, suggesting it is engineered rather than an outcome of evolution.
The biblical perspective views the human mind as a reflection of the divine mind, emphasizing its unique design.
Brain Power Beyond Matter And Imagination
The human brain is often called the most complex structure in the known universe—and for good reason. With billions of neurons, trillions of synapses, and unimaginable processing power, the brain has no rival in artificial technology.
Computers outperform humans in raw arithmetic, but the brain is superior in:
energy efficiency
dynamic learning
pattern recognition
real-time environmental interaction
self-organization
creativity
awareness
This makes it arguably the most advanced information-processing system known in the universe.
Its complexity raises a compelling question: Is the brain a product of mindless evolution, or the work of an intelligent Creator?
1. The Brain’s Unmatched Processing Power
The brain contains:
~86 billion neurons
Each connecting to up to 10,000 others
Forming over 100 trillion synapses
Together, these allow the brain to perform an estimated:
10¹⁶ to 10¹⁸ operations per second
—roughly equivalent to the world’s most powerful supercomputers.
Yet the brain runs on 20 watts—less than a dim light bulb.
Supercomputers require:
huge cooling systems
warehouses full of hardware
megawatts of electricity
The brain fits into a three-pound organ between your ears.
2. A Self-Learning, Self-Organizing System
Unlike artificial computers:
the brain rewires itself
strengthens useful pathways
prunes inefficient ones
learns from experience
adapts to injury
stores memory chemically and electrically
integrates information from all senses simultaneously
This is AI—but biological, not artificial.
No machine comes close.
3. Consciousness: The Ultimate Mystery
Perhaps the most profound feature is consciousness—the existence of subjective experience, self-awareness, thought, emotion, and rationality.
Materialism cannot explain:
intentionality
abstract reasoning
logic
moral awareness
the existence of consciousness itself
Stephen Meyer emphasizes this in Return of the God Hypothesis, arguing that consciousness is not reducible to matter. Matter produces electrical signals—not thoughts, meaning, or rational deliberation.
Mind cannot emerge from non-mind.
4. The Brain Looks Engineered
The brain exhibits all hallmarks of design:
specified complexity
functional integration
information processing
efficiency
fine-tuned architecture
If an AI researcher discovered a machine with these properties, they would infer one thing:
Someone designed it.
5. Biblical Insight
Scripture describes humanity as uniquely endowed:
“God breathed into man the breath of life.” — Genesis 2:7 “We have the mind of Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 2:16
The biblical worldview has always held that the human mind is not an accident but a reflection of the divine mind.
Conclusion
The brain is a masterpiece of engineering—far beyond human invention. Its processing power, architecture, adaptability, and consciousness all point to intelligent design rather than mindless evolution. The more we learn, the more the evidence mounts: The human mind is the product of a greater Mind.
Can a person be postmodern and a Christian? Not for long
Famous analytical philosopher John Searle has written a book “Mind, Language And Society: Philosophy In The Real World”, explaining what’s factually wrong with postmodernism. In the introduction, he explains what postmodernism is, and what motivates people to accept postmodernism.
He writes:
[…][W]hen we act or think or talk in the following sorts of ways we take a lot for granted: when we hammer a nail, or order a takeout meal from a restaurant, or conduct a lab experiment, or wonder where to go on vacation, we take the following for granted: there exists a real world that is totally independent of human beings and of what they think or say about it, and statements about objects and states of affairs in that world are true or false depending on whether things in the world really are the way we say they are. So, for example, if in pondering my vacation plans I wonder whether Greece is hotter in the summer than Italy, I simply take it for granted that there exists a real world containing places like Greece and Italy and that they have various temperatures. Furthermore, if I read in a travel book that the average summer temperature in Greece is hotter than in Italy, I know that what the book says will be true if and only if it really is hotter on average in the summer in Greece than in Italy. This is because I take it for granted that such statements are true only if there is something independent of the statement in virtue of which, or because of which, it is true.
[…]These two Background presuppositions have long histories and various famous names. The first, that there is a real world existing independently of us, I like to call “external realism.” “Realism,” because it asserts the existence of the real world, and “external” to distinguish it from other sorts of realism-for example, realism about mathematical objects (mathematical realism) or realism about ethical facts (ethical realism). The second view, that a statement is true if things in the world are the way the statement says they are, and false otherwise, is called “the correspondence theory of truth.” This theory comes in a lot of different versions, but the basic idea is that statements are true if they correspond to, or describe, or fit, how things really are in the world, and false if they do not.
The “correspondence theory of truth” is the view of truth assumed in books of the Bible whose genre is such that that they were intended by the authors to be taken literally, (with allowances for symbolism, figures of speech, metaphors, hyperbole, etc.).
But what about the postmodernists, who seek to deny the objectivity of external reality?
More Searle:
Thinkers who wish to deny the correspondence theory of truth or the referential theory of thought and language typically find it embarrassing to have to concede external realism. Often they would rather not talk about it at all, or they have some more or less subtle reason for rejecting it. In fact, very few thinkers come right out and say that there is no such thing as a real world existing absolutely, objectively, and totally independently of us. Some do. Some come right out and say that the so-called real world is a “social construct.”
What is behind the denial of objective reality, and statements about external reality that are warranted by evidence?
It is not easy to get a fix on what drives contemporary antirealism, but if we had to pick out a thread that runs through the wide variety of arguments, it would be what is sometimes called “perspectivism.” Perspectivism is the idea that our knowledge of reality is never “unmediated,” that it is always mediated by a point of view, by a particular set of predilections, or, worse yet by sinister political motives, such as an allegiance to a political group or ideology. And because we can never have unmediated knowledge of the world, then perhaps there is no real world, or perhaps it is useless to even talk about it, or perhaps it is not even interesting.
Searle is going to refute anti-realism in the rest of the book, but here is his guess at what is motivating the anti-realists:
I have to confess, however, that I think there is a much deeper reason for the persistent appeal of all forms of antirealism, and this has become obvious in the twentieth century: it satisfies a basic urge to power. It just seems too disgusting, somehow, that we should have to be at the mercy of the “real world.” It seems too awful that our representations should have to be answerable to anything but us. This is why people who hold contemporary versions of antirealism and reject the correspondence theory of truth typically sneer at the opposing view.
[…]I don’t think it is the argument that is actually driving the impulse to deny realism. I think that as a matter of contemporary cultural and intellectual history, the attacks on realism are not driven by arguments, because the arguments are more or less obviously feeble, for reasons I will explain in detail in a moment. Rather, as I suggested earlier, the motivation for denying realism is a kind of will to power, and it manifests itself in a number of ways. In universities, most notably in various humanities disciplines, it is assumed that, if there is no real world, then science is on the same footing as the humanities. They both deal with social constructs, not with independent realities. From this assumption, forms of postmodernism, deconstruction, and so on, are easily developed, having been completely turned loose from the tiresome moorings and constraints of having to confront the real world. If the real world is just an invention-a social construct designed to oppress the marginalized elements of society-then let’s get rid of the real world and construct the world we want. That, I think, is the real driving psychological force behind antirealism at the end of the twentieth century.
Now, I’ll go one step further than Searle.
People, from the Fall, have had the desire to step into the place of God. It’s true that we creatures exist in a universe created and designed by God. But, there is a way to work around the fact that God made the universe and the laws that the universe runs on, including logic, mathematics and natural laws. And that way is to deny logic, mathematics and natural laws. Postmodernists simply deny that there is any way to construct rational arguments and support the premises with evidence from the real world. That way, they imagine, they are free to escape a God-designed world, including a God-designed specification for how they ought to live. The postmoderns deny the reliable methods of knowing about the God-created reality because logic and evidence can be used to point to God’s existence, God’s character, and God’s actions in history.
And that’s why there is this effort to make reality “optional” and perspectival. Everyone can be their own God, and escape any accountability to the real God – the God who is easily discovered through the use of logic and evidence. I believe that this is also behind the rise of atheists, who feign allegiance to logic and science, but then express “skepticism” about the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, objective morality, the minimal facts concerning the historical Jesus, and other undeniables.
As unlikely and unexpected as it may be, life exists in our universe, and just as researchers stipulate to the appearance of fine-tuning in the cosmos, scientists also stipulate to the appearance of design in biological organisms. Richard Dawkins would be the first to agree: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Many other scientists affirm this observation and extend it to include the larger ecosystems in which many symbiotic organisms are dependent on one another for their survival. Smith College professor of biological sciences, Robert Dorit says, “The apparent fit between organisms seems to suggest some higher intelligence at work, some supervisory gardener bringing harmony and color to the garden.” For scientists looking for an explanation within the “garden” to avoid the inference of an external “supervisory gardener,” this appearance of design is difficult to explain.
Dawkins believes, however, the power of natural evolutionary processes can explain “the illusion of design and planning.” If the appearance of design and planning is purely illusory, it is an impressive illusion indeed. The examples of apparent design are plentiful and varied. Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe describes a number of inexplicable biological systems and micro-machines in his ground-breaking book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Behe challenges the scientific community to explain the appearance of design in cellular cilium (microscopic oar-like filaments), the interconnected molecular processes involved in blood clotting, the specified complexity of cellular protein delivery systems, and more. He describes these systems in detail and identifies a number of design features similar to those we observed in the garrote.
Behe and other scientists, such as biochemist Fazale Rana, believe the interaction of an intelligent agent “outside the room” (of the natural universe) is the best explanation for the appearance of design in these microscopic structures and processes “inside the room.” In fact, Rana believes the design inference is reasonable in even the simplest life forms: “The incredible complex nature of minimal life, likewise, makes it difficult to envision how natural evolutionary processes could have produced even the simplest life-forms . . . it is super-astronomically improbable for the essential gene set to emerge simultaneously through natural means alone.”
Illustration from God’s Crime Scene
In my latest book, God’s Crime Scene, I describe eight attributes of design and explain how the presence of these attribute is best explained by the activity of a designer. When these eight design characteristics are present in objects we observe in our world, we quickly infer a designer without reservation. As it turns out, the same attributes of design (dubious probability, echoes of familiarity, sophistication and intricacy, informational dependency, goal direction, natural inexplicability, efficiency/irreducible complexity, and decision/choice reflection) are present in even the most primitive biological organisms, making them prohibitively difficult to explain on the basis of chance mutations and the laws of physics or chemistry alone. Life at its simplest and most foundational level demonstrates a staggering level of complexity. According to biochemist Michael Denton, cooperative, interactive, cellular factories appear purposefully designed: “That each constituent utilized by the cell for a particular biological role, each cog in the watch, turns out to be the only and at the same time the ideal candidate for its role is particularly suggestive of design. That the whole, the end to which all this teleological wizardry leads—the living cell—should be also ideally suited for the task of constructing the world of multicellular life reinforces the conclusion of purposeful design. The prefabrication of parts to a unique end is the very hallmark of design. Moreover, there is simply no way that such prefabrication could be the result of natural selection.”
Michael Behe’s numerous biological examples provide an insurmountable challenge to naturalistic theories appealing to causes from “inside the room”. The cumulative design features present in these organisms simply cannot be explained by naturalistic processes. The sheer number of parts required to work together simultaneously for each of these systems to function incline us toward an external explanation: “As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together [through mutations and natural selection] skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets . . . As the number of systems that are resistant to gradualist explanation mounts, the need for a new kind of explanation grows more apparent.”
The most obvious and reasonable inference seems to be elusive to naturalists who try to account for the appearance of design in biological organisms. No explanation employing the laws of physics or chemistry from “inside the room” of the natural universe is adequate. The appearance of design in biology is yet another evidence demonstrating the existence of an “external” Divine Designer. This brief summary of evidence for design is excerpted from God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Four – Signs of Design: Is There Evidence of An Artist?
The most obvious and reasonable inference seems to be elusive to naturalists who try to account for the appearance of design in biological organisms Share on X
The human body is a marvelous and complex system. Of special interest is the cellular mechanism of the body. Every 7-10 years, the cells of the body replace themselves, to the point that the body is essentially new every decade.[i]
While the DNA remains the same over the course of a person’s life, the cells change at varying rates. A person’s stomach lining replaces itself every few days. The skin’s epidermis replaces itself every 2 to 4 weeks. The body’s hair changes every 6 years for women and 3 years for men. Liver cells rejuvenate every 150 to 500 days. Bones take around 10 years to change.
Philosophically speaking, the materialist has a problem if he decides to claim that the body is all of human existence. If humans are only their bodies, then each person changes completely every decade. However, this poses severe challenges to personhood. The lack of permanence is not feasible for a person’s essence. Thus, an immaterial soul is required to explain the permanence of the human psyche for three reasons.
Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Identity
First, the immaterial soul must exist to verify continued personal identity. Looking back at our lives, it is clear that we look different each decade. I remember looking back at photos from my high school days. Before wearing contact lenses, I donned thick glasses that automatically darkened when in daylight. With a thick bouffant hairstyle, thin moustache, and 80s-style glasses, I looked something like an officer or detective from a 70s television show. I was much like an officer from CHiPs, but without the cool motorcycle.
Though I may be embarrassed by my stylish choices in high school, never would I dare to say that I was not the same person that I am today. Yes, I have changed, grown, and matured over the years. But I maintain the same identity that I did back then. Permanence of personal identity with an ever-changing body is only possible if our identities are held together by an immaterial soul. Without it, there is no guarantee that we will retain our personal identity.
Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Constancy
Second, the immaterial soul is imperative to explain personal constancy. Consider for a moment if the materialist is right in that the body is the only component of personal human identity. That would mean that the person completely changes every decade. Thus, a crime committed in 2015 could not be tried in 2025 because the person is not the same. Since the body has completely changed, the person must have also completely changed if the body is all there is to personal identity. Thus, no one could be held accountable for what was done over time. Additionally, no one could be rewarded for something they accomplished over time.
For some, this may sound absurd. However, the lack of personal constancy is the metaphysical deduction from materialism, when it is allowed to be taken to its ultimate conclusion. The immaterial reality is necessary to account for the constancy of personal identity.
Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Growth
Lastly, if a person did not have an immaterial mind, will, and emotions found in the immaterial soul, then a person would not learn and grow over time. Even brain cells regenerate over time, at least to a degree.[ii] Granted, learning does interact with the brain. However, if personal identity was only found in chemicals and cellular changes, growth could not occur. Yet, a person learns, grows, and develops one’s character over time. This is something that occurs within the immaterial soul. Again, given the changes that occur, a person would always be in a constant state of flux with no consistency or permanence. The soul working with the body is what gives an individual personal identity. This mind-body connection is also known as hylomorphism.[iii]
Conclusion
Since the early days of philosophy, scholars have sought to understand the complex relationship between permanence and change. Materialists often accept change without any sense of permanence, whereas rationalists, such as Parmenides (510 BC) believed that reality is “just being, one single solitary unchanging being. Reality is the One.”[iv] The body is in a constant state of flux. Thus, the only way a person could have a permanent, constant identity is if a person has an immaterial soul, a soul that serves as the form of the body.
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.
The appearance of fine-tuning in our universe has been observed by theists and atheists alike. Even physicist Paul Davies (who is agnostic when it comes to the notion of a Divine Designer) readily stipulates, “Everyone agrees that the universe looks as if it was designed for life.” Oxford philosopher John Leslie agrees: “it looks as if our universe is spectacularly ‘fine-tuned for life’. By this I mean only that it looks as if small changes in this universe’s basic features would have made life’s evolution impossible.” The foundational “laws of nature” are amazingly fine-tuned; there is very little room for alteration. The smallest modifications of these laws would completely destroy the possibility of life in the universe. Theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking says the laws of physics “appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life…The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.” The universe appears fine-tuned in three specific ways:
Forces Governing the Atom Are Favorable to Life: The constants and proportions of the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the force of gravity must exist within very narrow ranges in order for life to exist in the universe. The ratio of electrons to protons (both in their numbers and mass) must be precariously balanced. Stanford University physicist and cosmologist, Leonard Susskind, says, “The Laws of Physics begin with a list of elementary particles like electrons, quarks, and photons, each with special properties such as mass and electric charge. These are the objects that everything else is built out of. No one knows why the list is what it is or why the properties of these particles are exactly what they are. An infinite number of other lists are equally possible. But a universe filled with life is by no means a generic expectation…” If the value of this ratio deviated more than 1 in 1037, the universe, as we know it, would not exist today. If the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 1040, the universe would have suffered a similar fate. The nature of the universe (at the atomic level) could have been different, but even remarkably small differences would have been catastrophic to our existence.
Forces Governing the Matter of the Universe Are Favorable to Life: On the macro-level, the size of the universe, its rate of growth, and the nature and existence of galaxies, stars, and planets depend largely on the force of gravity. While we sometimes take gravity for granted, the precisely calibrated gravity in the universe is puzzling; Susskind describes it as an “unexplained miracle.” If the expansion rate of the universe deviated by more than 1 in 1037, or the mass density of universe varied more than 1 in 1059, there wouldn’t be a single habitable galaxy or planet in the universe.
Forces Governing the Creation of Chemicals Are Favorable to Life: The earliest elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium, are insufficient for the existence of carbon-based life forms unless joined by carbon, oxygen and the other necessary elements. These secondary elements were formed in stars, but the process by which these stars converted hydrogen and helium to carbon was an incredibly fine-tuned process. Even small alterations in the laws of physics would have prevented the formation of elements critical to the existence of life. Susskind puts it this way: “In the beginning there were only hydrogen and helium: certainly not sufficient for the foundation of life. Carbon, oxygen, and all the others came later. They were formed in the nuclear reactors in the interiors of stars. But the ability of stars to transmute hydrogen and helium into the all-important carbon nuclei was a very delicate affair. Small changes in the laws of electricity and nuclear physics could have prevented the formation of carbon.”
Illustration from God’s Crime Scene
When we use exponential numbers like 1 in 1037, it’s easy to underestimate the precision these numbers represent. Let me give you a few illustrations to help you grasp the exactitude of these universal constants:
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross offers the following analogy: Imagine covering the entire North American continent in dimes and stacking them until they reached the moon. Now imagine stacking just as many dimes again on another billion continents the same size as North America. If you marked one of those dimes and hid it in the billions of piles you’ve assembled, the odds of a blindfolded friend picking out the correct dime is approximately 1 in 1037; the same level of precision required in the strong nuclear force and the expansion rate of the universe.
Philosopher Robin Collins describes it this way: Imagine stretching a measuring tape across the entire known universe. Now imagine one particular mark on the tape represents the correct degree of gravitational force required to create the universe we have. If this mark were moved more than an inch from where it is (on a measuring tape spanning the entire universe), the altered gravitational force would prevent our universe from coming into existence.
Paul Davies credits the following analogy to John Jefferson Davis: Imagine trying to fire a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe. The accuracy required to accomplish such a feat has been calculated at 1 in 1060. Compare this to the precision required in calibrating the mass density of the universe (fine-tuned to within 1 unit in 1059).
Hugh Ross also provides the following analogy: Imagine comparing the universe to an aircraft carrier like the USS John C Stennis (measuring 1,092 feet long with a displacement of 100,000 tons). If this carrier were as fine-tuned as the mass density of our universe, subtracting a billionth of a trillionth of the mass of an electron from the total mass of the aircraft carrier would sink the ship.
The appearance of fine-tuning in our universe has been observed by theists and atheists alike. Share on X
Starting to appreciate the level of fine-tuning in the foundational particles and forces in the universe? A small change in the value of any one particle or force would have a major impact on the larger systems and outcomes. These fine-tuned relationships (sometimes jokingly referred to as “happy cosmic accidents”) are critically important to life in the cosmos. If just one of these parameters were altered, critical difficulties would result at every level of the universe. According to theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, “…it’s shocking to find how many of the familiar constants of the universe lie within a very narrow band that makes life possible. If a single one of these accidents were altered, stars would never form, the universe would fly apart, DNA would not exist, life as we know it would be impossible, Earth would flip over or freeze, and so on.”
Truth2Freedom's Blog 