Fine-tuning snowflakes
Have a good week, Rabbi!
It is known that snowflakes form extremely complex and precise shapes that are hard to believe are created on their own.
I was talking to a friend of mine who is an atheist and read your book about God, and he asked me a big question.
He told me that according to your logic, that the laws of nature have a creator, then if we found snowflakes drawn on a sheet of paper, let’s say like this:
Surely we would all assume that someone created them, since they are so complex and precise. But now we find exactly such drawings in actual snowflakes , and we are aware that the laws of nature create them, and no one would think of saying that some God did some ‘fine-tuning’ and deliberately intended to create laws that would lead to such special snowflakes.
After all, if there were no animals that were complex, we would not conclude about God from snowflakes.
But according to the Rabbi’s logic, that natural laws do not eliminate the need for a Creator, it can be proven that there is a ‘God’ (“Creator of snowflakes”) from these snowflakes. Although it is the laws of nature that create them, the question returns to the laws themselves! (Outside the laws!) Who created laws that create such special and complex paintings? It is clear that most all systems of laws would not produce any product that even comes close to the uniqueness of these snowflakes.
I was very embarrassed and didn’t know what to answer him, so I told him I would ask you.
Do you have an answer for that?
Best regards, Benjamin.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1) Do you think God intentionally designed such special shapes to emerge, just as He designed living things to emerge?
2) Why temporary specialness? Every snowflake creates such a shape. So what if it melts?
I think most people would find it ridiculous to claim that God intended for such flakes to emerge, and would say that it was a coincidence.
Thanks.
Shame on anyone who prefers speculation (without any basis or logic) about God's will over statistical considerations.
Beyond that, even if he did not intend for such snowflakes, the laws are intended to achieve life and are therefore very special, and hence they can also create other special forms.
In short, nonsense.
What speculations do you mean? It's not over statistical considerations! It's because of them! Because the random chance of getting them is low, so it's clear that Elokin intended to make rules that would give special snowflakes. I didn't understand, Rabbi.
I am aiming for exactly what I wrote: the questioner prefers speculation about God's intentions (that He certainly did not intend to create snowflakes. Where did He come from?) over a clear probabilistic argument (that it is unlikely that it was created unintentionally, and therefore it seems that He did intend to).
I understood you. He gave me another example: a circle in the ground. If we find a very precise giant circle in a wheat field, we conclude that someone made it. But when we find a special circle formed by water, we do not conclude this, even though it is possible to argue that the laws were created by God. Why? After all, a circle is also very rare (a scattering of many points at an equal distance from the center). And here we found that when it comes to a natural process (a circle formed by flowing water) we do not conclude about a creator, even though in a completely identical circle for which we do not know a natural process for its formation (an exactly identical circle in a field) we do conclude. Once again it has been proven that we do not go outside the laws and demand a creator for them.
What do you answer??
A perfect circle is indeed a special shape, but it seems likely that it could have been created by chance simply by its symmetry. Life is not created by a single law or any symmetry (its uniqueness does not stem from the symmetry it has, but from complexity). Although even there there is room for argument that the law that created it is special and precise.
In general, I brought up the subject of entropy because it demonstrates uniqueness due to complexity and not due to symmetry. And does it contradict the second law of thermodynamics that special things do not come into being by chance without a guiding hand? Why aren't its arguments directed towards the second law?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
