Q&A: Fine-Tuning of Snowflakes
Fine-Tuning of Snowflakes
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi!
It is well known that snowflakes form extremely complex and very precise shapes, and it is hard to believe that they arise on their own.
I was speaking with a friend of mine who is an atheist and who read your book about God, and he challenged me with a major question.
He told me that according to your logic, that the laws of nature have a creator, then if we were to find drawings of snowflakes on a sheet of paper, say like these:
surely all of us would assume that someone created them, since they are highly complex and very 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 even thinks to say that some God did “fine-tuning” and intentionally meant to create laws that would lead to such special snowflakes.
After all, if there were no living creatures that are complex, we would not infer God from snowflakes.
But according to the Rabbi’s logic, that laws of nature do not eliminate the need for a creator, one could prove that there is a “God” (“the creator of snowflakes”) from these snowflakes. True, the laws of nature create them, but then the question returns to the laws themselves! (Outside the laws!) Who created laws that produce such special and complex drawings? Clearly, the overwhelming majority of possible systems of laws would not produce any outcome that even comes close to the uniqueness of these snowflakes.
I was very embarrassed and did not know what to answer him, so I told him I would ask you.
Do you have an answer to this?
Best regards, Benjamin.
Answer
I did not understand the question. If there are additional complex entities, that is further evidence that God created the special laws that produce them. So we certainly could have inferred His existence from snowflakes as well (though it is less convincing than the proof from living creatures, because the uniqueness is incomparably lower, and we are not speaking of stable entities; also, temporary uniqueness is easier to explain as random).
Discussion on Answer
Anyone who prefers speculations (with no basis or logic whatsoever) about God’s intentions over statistical considerations, good for him.
Beyond that, even if He did not intend such snowflakes, the laws are meant to achieve life and therefore they are very special, and from that it follows that they can also create other special forms.
In short, nonsense.
What speculations are you referring to? It is not instead of statistical considerations! It is because of them! Because the random chance of getting them is low, then clearly God intended to make laws that would yield special snowflakes. I did not understand, Rabbi.
I mean exactly what I wrote: the questioner prefers speculations about God’s intentions (for surely He did not intend to create snowflakes. How does he know that?) over a clear probabilistic argument (that it is unlikely this was created without intention, and therefore it seems that He actually did intend it).
I understand you. He gave me another example: a circle in the ground. If we find a very precise giant circle in a wheat field, we would conclude that someone made it. But when we find a special circle created by water, we do not conclude that, even though one could argue that God created the laws. Why not? After all, a circle too is very rare (a distribution of many points at equal distance from the center). And here we find that when it is a natural process (a circle formed by flowing water) we do not infer a creator, whereas with an identical circle for whose formation we know of no natural process (an exactly identical circle in a field) we would infer one. So once again it has been proven that we do not step outside the laws and demand a creator for them.
What do we answer??
A precise circle is indeed a special shape, but it seems plausible that it could form by chance in a simple way because of its symmetry. Life is not formed by a single law or some symmetry (their uniqueness does not stem from symmetry but from complexity). Although there too one could argue that the law that created it is special and precise.
In general, I introduced the topic of entropy first because it demonstrates uniqueness due to complexity and not due to symmetry. And does he dispute the second law of thermodynamics, that special things do not arise by chance without a guiding hand? Why are his objections not directed against the second law?
1) In your view, did God intentionally plan for such special shapes to come out, just as He planned for living creatures to come out?
2) Why temporary uniqueness? Every snowflake forms such a shape. So what if it melts.
It seems to me that most people would see it as ridiculous to claim that God intended such snowflakes to come out, and would say that it is coincidence.
Thanks.