Someone with an atheistic worldview
once told me that the fine-tuning of the universe is no more remarkable than a puddle
of water. We can observe that water will perfectly fit the shape of the puddle
hole. No one ever asks, “What are the odds of that particular amount of water
fitting that particular hole so perfectly?” I responded something to the effect
that the puddle is a conditioned reality like any other physical reality. What
are the physical conditions needed for the water to fit the hole and why does
it need to be that way? Why does anything need to be anyway at all? It relates
to the metaphysical question of “Why somethinginstead of nothing?”
Besides being able to fit a puddle
hole, water has a litany of amazing properties that no one could ever guess
given only water; they are only discovered in the context of water as the
liquid of life.
Simplicity: Earth, wind, fire and water are not
basic elements as once thought, but water is as simple and plentiful as a
compound can be. This simplicity made it easy to recognize the two basic elements
of hydrogen and oxygen in a simple 2:1 ratio (H2O), which was an enormous
intellectual leap for mankind.
What if our plentiful liquid of life
was glycerol (CH2OHCHOHCH2OH)? In terms of learning about the reality of
elements which led to the discovery of atoms, water acts almost like a simple ubiquitous
tutorial, like learning to read using Dick & Jane instead of Shakespeare.
Freezing
and Expanding: Every
kid in science class learns that things expand when they get hot and contract
as they get cold. Water contracts as it gets colder too, but to a point, that point
being about 4°C, then a sudden burst of expansion occurs
around 0°C. This makes ice float.
Liquid water must be readily available
on the surface of the earth for life to exist. Ice that sinks would not only
hinder the biological processes at the bottom of a large body of water, but
also accumulate as solid ice under the murky water far from the melting rays of
the sun.
Specific
Heat: It takes a lot
of energy to heat water. Water has
the highest specific heat of any liquid except ammonia. 70% of the planet’s
surface is water which is a good thing for us since it helps regulate the
earth’s temperature. Think of the hot
sand on the beach on a hot day as compared to the cool water. What if water
heated just as fast as sand? What would that mean for not only the earth, but
for our waterlogged bodies as we generate metabolic heat?!? We all know how it
feels if our body temperature goes up just a few degrees.
Latent
Heat of Evaporation: It
takes a lot of heat to evaporate water and when it does finally does evaporate
it takes a lot of heat with it. Water is not only a remarkable cooling liquid for
our bodies as sweat, but evaporation in tropical areas carries latent heat to colder climates which is
released as it condenses. No other substance could absorb, store, transport and
release so much heat.
Latent
Heat of Fusion: An
unusually high latent heat of fusion means that as water freezes in winter it releases
the heat it absorbed the previous spring when it melted. Remember that the next
time you complain a lake is freezing over. It would be even colder if water did
not have this additional temperature stabilizing property.
A
Powerful Solvent: Water
is a powerful solvent that is also not highly reactive like other solvents; it
releases minerals from rocks without attacking biological entities and is also a
great circulator of its precious cargo, being that it remains a flowing liquid at
the just the right temperatures. The expanding trick of water as it freezes
opens the cracks and crevasses of rocks, releasing even more life giving
minerals.
High
Surface Tension: Surpassed
only by liquid mercury, the surface tension of water is curiously high. Water
can rise to great heights and if trees and other large vegetation could be
thankful, I’m sure they would be, since no extra effort is needed to pull the water
up. There would be no large vegetation on earth if not for this property, and
what would that do to the
planet’s ecosystem? Additionally, clingy
water will not just soak through to deep soil and underground streams. It grips
to particles near the surface long enough for roots to soak it up.
Another
Convenient Coincidence: The
liquid of life just happens to exits in all three phases (solid, liquid, gas)
within the same biological temperature range that carbon based life can occur.
Water is remarkably fine-tuned for
life. One must accept the premise that all its properties are either a mindless
coincidence or designed for a purpose; the purpose of life. Impartial reasoning
accepts the principle that things which appear
intelligently designed…are in fact intelligently designed. Things do not magically
design themselves no matter how much we would like them to. A quote in the book
by agnostic physicist Fred Hoyle points to
how some are rediscovering this intellectual honesty.
“A common sense interpretation of the
facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as
the chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking
about in nature.”
– Fred Hoyle
Fine post Ben, and as another illustration of great minds travel in the same road...
ReplyDeletemy post, "The Theology of Water--Is Design Intelligent?" based on a fine sci-fi short story "The Theology of Water" by Hilbert Schenck.
Excellent! I'll check it out.
DeleteThanks Bob
forgot to give the URL
Deletehttp://rationalcatholic.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-theology-of-water-is-design.html
So your point is -- water is cool, therefore the God of Abraham?
ReplyDeleteYou're going to have to do better than that.
Hi Anony,
DeleteIncorrect. The point is "intellectual honesty".
There are good arguments for the existence of God. The ‘fine-tuning’ argument is not one of them. The ‘fine-tuning’ argument is self-inconsistent. The valid range of probability is zero to one. There is no sub-range from 0 to alpha, where values of probability, being so close to zero, are invalid. Yet, this is what the fine-tuning argument requires, namely the necessary validity of probability from zero to one, but its invalidity from zero to alpha, where alpha is greater than zero, but less than one.
ReplyDeleteI dealt with the problems of the fine-tuning argument at http://canepancakegravy.blogspot.com/2014/04/billion-dollar-brackets-and-fine-tuning.html.
ReplyDelete