God's existence

[tonyrey]

I get tired of these theism vs. atheism threads because the majority of this is a question of if you want God to exist or not. “Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding.” Have fun, I’m heading off, good luck.

Wishful thinking isn’t confined to one side but it always gives way to a contest of which explanation is intellectually superior!

 

[Perplexity]

The earth is situated perfectly in the universe to sustain life. If it was a little closer to the sun it would be too hot to sustain life. If it was too far away from the sun it would be much too cold for life. God made us in His image. The brain is very complex and modern science has very limited knowledge on how exactly our brains function. Are these two of the strongest examples of God’s existence? Any other thoughs on this?

hmm, well technically these aren’t arguments. You’d want to put them into an argument form…something like this:

(1) If atheism is true, then (probably) the earth wouldn’t be situated in the universe to sustain life.

(2) But the earth is situated in the universe to sustain life.

(3) Therefore, (probably) atheism isn’t true. (1), (2), M.T.]

With regards to the fine-tuning argument, the atheist will want to go after the idea that we’re able to reasonably speak of cosmic probabilities. Unless we can say a life-permitting universe is improbable given the possible universes, there is no fine-tuning (in a relevant sense). For instance, suppose there are an infinite amount of possible life-permitting universe, and an infinite amount of life-prohibiting universes, each of which could’ve actualized. Can we then say that a life-permitting universe is vastly improbable? No, not all. Can we say that this particular universe is vastly improbable? Sure, but the anthropic principle will erode this point. So, I think the best thing the atheist can do is go after this idea that we can speak of cosmic probabilities.

As for the brain, I guess I’m not sure how that’s an argument for God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If it is God and me, then who are you but my entertainment for the moment.? Solipisim is the 3rd sin in Levayan satanism for a reason.

I’ve seen this view illustrated before, most recently in a cartoon where a character thought that he himself was God, that he couldn’t die, that if he ever did die the world would no longer exists since it was hi mind that was creating the world, and that he could kill for fun since the people of the world were his entertainment. Then things got pretty bloody.

Where is the argument against it?

The real life examples of which I know of people that seriously take this view involve psychopathy or prefrontal lobe disorders and damage. I’d rather steer clear of such people instead of arguing with them. People with these conditions may be severely immune to empathy and emotion and if I am already seen as an object of entertainment I wouldn’t expect to be taken seriously. Arguing against such a person may be like presenting logical arguments to a bear on why it should not eat you.

 

[Samson01]

I’ve seen this view illustrated before, most recently in a cartoon where a character thought that he himself was God, that he couldn’t die, that if he ever did die the world would no longer exists since it was hi mind that was creating the world, and that he could kill for fun since the people of the world were his entertainment. Then things got pretty bloody.

The real life examples of which I know of people that seriously take this view involve psychopathy or prefrontal lobe disorders and damage. I’d rather steer clear of such people instead of arguing with them. People with these conditions may be severely immune to empathy and emotion and if I am already seen as an object of entertainment I wouldn’t expect to be taken seriously. Arguing against such a person may be like presenting logical arguments to a bear on why it should not eat you.

Don’t forget trauma…causing derealization or depersonalization. Things can get real ugly for these folks. Real ugly. But all in all, it is about perception of any one person. For me as a believer , not enough evidence can be given to a nonbeliever to sway a change of mind and for a believer, none is needed. Prayer and the grace of faith, one of the three theologocal virtues is needed. If I thought I could do that, I would then be making myself god, wouldn’t I. Samson

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The earth is situated perfectly in the universe to sustain life. If it was a little closer to the sun it would be too hot to sustain life. If it was too far away from the sun it would be much too cold for life. God made us in His image. The brain is very complex and modern science has very limited knowledge on how exactly our brains function. Are these two of the strongest examples of God’s existence? Any other thoughs on this?

No it is not a good example of God’s existence as scientific evidence is emerging continuously that there is a strong possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. This indicates to us that life emerged out of mere chemical/physical processes rather than emerging because of a divine being, as implied by the fine-tuning argument. It indicates to us that human beings and extraterrestrial life merely won the so-called “cosmic lottery”. It would be more astonishing if humans were the only living beings in this universe, as that would strongly allude to God creating Man specially. The evidence for that is lacking however, and even the Vatican had to argue that extraterrestrial life wouldn’t infringe on Church teaching; I speculate this argument was made because finding life elsewhere in the universe would virtually turn the underpinnings of Church doctrine/dogma overnight, and Church authorities are aware of it and preparing for it.

Another problem I have with the fine-tuning argument is that it amounts to picking and choosing to fit your own worldview. Whilst I was Catholic, I recall studying entropy for Chemistry. The principle underlying entropy is that Nature tends to move from order to disorder in isolated systems. What that means is that if you imagine a group of gas particles, in an isolated environment, they will move from being closely together to being very far apart. Entropy is summed up in the principle “disorder is stable, and order is unstable”. I asked myself why would God create such a random chemical process. You would expect that if God was real, then there would regularity amongst the particles, and that disorder would be “unstable” and not stable. Charles Darwin became agnostic after seeing evolution face-to-face. He couldn’t reconcile the seeming brutality of the evolutionary process with the existence of God.

I think human beings often tend to try and spot patterns in random scenarios. If I drew a random set of dots, your brain would subconsciously paint a mental picture. It happens in virtually every field. In finance for example, there is a contentious debate about the effectiveness of technical analysis in determining future price movements of securities such as stocks, bonds, etc. An economist destroyed the technical analysis movement with what is called in mathematics and economics today as the “random walk”. The same goes with scientific principles. Certain aspects of science are really predicated on randomness, and when you determine a pattern (e.g. fine-tuning argument) that isn’t evidence of God per se as it is your natural brain’s processes at work.

 

[eo_chibears]

hmm, well technically these aren’t arguments. You’d want to put them into an argument form…something like this:

(1) If atheism is true, then (probably) the earth wouldn’t be situated in the universe to sustain life.

(2) But the earth is situated in the universe to sustain life.

(3) Therefore, (probably) atheism isn’t true. (1), (2), M.T.]

With regards to the fine-tuning argument, the atheist will want to go after the idea that we’re able to reasonably speak of cosmic probabilities. Unless we can say a life-permitting universe is improbable given the possible universes, there is no fine-tuning (in a relevant sense). For instance, suppose there are an infinite amount of possible life-permitting universe, and an infinite amount of life-prohibiting universes, each of which could’ve actualized. Can we then say that a life-permitting universe is vastly improbable? No, not all. Can we say that this particular universe is vastly improbable? Sure, but the anthropic principle will erode this point. So, I think the best thing the atheist can do is go after this idea that we can speak of cosmic probabilities.

As for the brain, I guess I’m not sure how that’s an argument for God.

To me the brain is a very strong argument for God. He made us in His image. Our brains are extremely complex, modern science has barely scratched the surface on all of it’s intricacies. In my opinion it’s not a evolutionary miracle to have the sophisticated brain that we do.

 

[eo_chibears]

No it is not a good example of God’s existence as scientific evidence is emerging continuously that there is a strong possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. This indicates to us that life emerged out of mere chemical/physical processes rather than emerging because of a divine being, as implied by the fine-tuning argument. It indicates to us that human beings and extraterrestrial life merely won the so-called “cosmic lottery”. It would be more astonishing if humans were the only living beings in this universe, as that would strongly allude to God creating Man specially. The evidence for that is lacking however, and even the Vatican had to argue that extraterrestrial life wouldn’t infringe on Church teaching; I speculate this argument was made because finding life elsewhere in the universe would virtually turn the underpinnings of Church doctrine/dogma overnight, and Church authorities are aware of it and preparing for it.

Another problem I have with the fine-tuning argument is that it amounts to picking and choosing to fit your own worldview. Whilst I was Catholic, I recall studying entropy for Chemistry. The principle underlying entropy is that Nature tends to move from order to disorder in isolated systems. What that means is that if you imagine a group of gas particles, in an isolated environment, they will move from being closely together to being very far apart. Entropy is summed up in the principle “disorder is stable, and order is unstable”. I asked myself why would God create such a random chemical process. You would expect that if God was real, then there would regularity amongst the particles, and that disorder would be “unstable” and not stable. Charles Darwin became agnostic after seeing evolution face-to-face. He couldn’t reconcile the seeming brutality of the evolutionary process with the existence of God.

I think human beings often tend to try and spot patterns in random scenarios. If I drew a random set of dots, your brain would subconsciously paint a mental picture. It happens in virtually every field. In finance for example, there is a contentious debate about the effectiveness of technical analysis in determining future price movements of securities such as stocks, bonds, etc. An economist destroyed the technical analysis movement with what is called in mathematics and economics today as the “random walk”. The same goes with scientific principles. Certain aspects of science are really predicated on randomness, and when you determine a pattern (e.g. fine-tuning argument) that isn’t evidence of God per se as it is your natural brain’s processes at work.

I know there are billions of planets. For my own research do you mind posting a link to the scientific evidence about the strong possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. I read about a lot of hypothetical situations about life elsewhere, or many sources break down the mathematical probabilities of life elsewhere. Nothing really ever goes past that though.

 

[karebear92]

No it is not a good example of God’s existence as scientific evidence is emerging continuously that there is a strong possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. This indicates to us that life emerged out of mere chemical/physical processes rather than emerging because of a divine being, as implied by the fine-tuning argument. It indicates to us that human beings and extraterrestrial life merely won the so-called “cosmic lottery”. It would be more astonishing if humans were the only living beings in this universe, as that would strongly allude to God creating Man specially. The evidence for that is lacking however, and even the Vatican had to argue that extraterrestrial life wouldn’t infringe on Church teaching; I speculate this argument was made because finding life elsewhere in the universe would virtually turn the underpinnings of Church doctrine/dogma overnight, and Church authorities are aware of it and preparing for it.

Another problem I have with the fine-tuning argument is that it amounts to picking and choosing to fit your own worldview. Whilst I was Catholic, I recall studying entropy for Chemistry. The principle underlying entropy is that Nature tends to move from order to disorder in isolated systems. What that means is that if you imagine a group of gas particles, in an isolated environment, they will move from being closely together to being very far apart. Entropy is summed up in the principle “disorder is stable, and order is unstable”. I asked myself why would God create such a random chemical process. You would expect that if God was real, then there would regularity amongst the particles, and that disorder would be “unstable” and not stable. Charles Darwin became agnostic after seeing evolution face-to-face. He couldn’t reconcile the seeming brutality of the evolutionary process with the existence of God.

I think human beings often tend to try and spot patterns in random scenarios. If I drew a random set of dots, your brain would subconsciously paint a mental picture. It happens in virtually every field. In finance for example, there is a contentious debate about the effectiveness of technical analysis in determining future price movements of securities such as stocks, bonds, etc. An economist destroyed the technical analysis movement with what is called in mathematics and economics today as the “random walk”. The same goes with scientific principles. Certain aspects of science are really predicated on randomness, and when you determine a pattern (e.g. fine-tuning argument) that isn’t evidence of God per se as it is your natural brain’s processes at work.

Are you saying this is a reason not to believe or a reason the “finely-tuned world” theory doesn’t work? I can kind of see what you are saying, but you could refute the entire entropy thing by saying that God gave us a sun to prevent our system (biologically) from becoming disordered. Clearly we don’t understand creation enough (if you believe in creation) to know why that law of thermodynamics exists (possibly so that all of energy is not contained in a ridiculously condensed ball in a space system, constantly condensing itself more to become more ordered), but you could say that having a sun which constantly emits energy into our system to prevent it from becoming disordered is further evidence of it being finely-tuned. If we didn’t have the sun, biology, and therefore, intelligent life wouldn’t exist.

 

[karebear92]

To me the brain is a very strong argument for God. He made us in His image. Our brains are extremely complex, modern science has barely scratched the surface on all of it’s intricacies. In my opinion it’s not a evolutionary miracle to have the sophisticated brain that we do.

I agree, but they could argue that it is disordered. Why does the right side control the left, and the left control the right? Or why is the occipital lobe in the back if the brain? Or they will ask why must our brain compensate so much for our imperfect body, i.e. why must our brain adjust for our eyes and flip images the correct way and correct the vision so that blood vessels are no longer seen? Why can’t a brain repair itself?

That is one of their arguments: we are imperfect, but highly functional. There was no reason to evolve further because our brains compensate to the point that if our vision did evolve more it wouldn’t do anything. So there really was no need to evolve further and that is why we are imperfect.

Obviously we counter that with humans are not meant to be perfect. And we can argue that evolution fits perfectly within Catholicism, and that God created the process of evolution with the intent of us becoming highly functional and not unnecessarily perfect.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No it is not a good example of God’s existence as scientific evidence is emerging continuously that there is a strong possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. This indicates to us that life emerged out of mere chemical/physical processes rather than emerging because of a divine being, as implied by the fine-tuning argument.

You do not understand the fine-tuning argument. It says that the physical constants are life-friendly. Since they pertain to the entire universe, of course you would expect life elsewhere in the universe. The fine-tuning argument has nothing to do with the claim that the origin of life was by special divine ‘fiat’ rather than by natural causes (which for the theist are created by God), and the "Rare Earth’ argument is not part of the fine-tuning observation made by cosmologists.

It would be more astonishing if humans were the only living beings in this universe, as that would strongly allude to God creating Man specially.

On the contrary. In a universe that is made life-friendly by God you would expect life to arise elsewhere than on our Earth. In fact, I wish we would find extraterrestial life, and there are good reasons to assume we will. This would counter the atheistic argument that we are just a chance ‘cosmic fluke’.

The evidence for that is lacking however, and even the Vatican had to argue that extraterrestrial life wouldn’t infringe on Church teaching; I speculate this argument was made because finding life elsewhere in the universe would virtually turn the underpinnings of Church doctrine/dogma overnight, and Church authorities are aware of it and preparing for it.

I expect microbial life in the universe to be plentiful, and higher species much rarer since they need much more sheltered planetary conditions (e.g., while scientists hope for life on the planets Titan and Europa in our own solar system, they expect only microbial life). And rational life would only be possible if God would choose to infuse a rational soul into higher species elsewhere, just like He did with us humans on Earth.

Another problem I have with the fine-tuning argument is that it amounts to picking and choosing to fit your own worldview.

The problem I have with typical atheists is that they are not even taking the apparent fine-tuning of our laws of nature seriously – yet all leading atheist and agnostic cosmologists do (hence they mostly embrace the multiverse as an explanatory necessity). Instead they come with all kinds of bogus arguments that show that they don’t understand it. This demonstrates that typical atheists pick and choose the scientific evidence to fit their own worldview, just like creationists do. Debating cosmic fine-tuning with atheists is just like debating evolution with creationists: hopeless and futile. I don’t see much difference in the level of self-inflicted intellectual blind-folding.

 

[Perplexity]

To me the brain is a very strong argument for God. He made us in His image. Our brains are extremely complex, modern science has barely scratched the surface on all of it’s intricacies. In my opinion it’s not a evolutionary miracle to have the sophisticated brain that we do.

hmm, if I’m understanding you correctly the brain isn’t evidence of God’s existence because it’s extremely complex, or because science doesn’t really understand its intricacies, but because it’s too improbable that we simply evolved brains like these.

On the face of it, this is an argument against evolution, not for theism or against atheism. But I suppose you might mean evidence against evolution is evidence for creationism or etc. Is that what you mean?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

You do not understand the fine-tuning argument. It says that the physical constants are life-friendly. Since they pertain to the entire universe, of course you would expect life elsewhere in the universe. The fine-tuning argument has nothing to do with the claim that the origin of life was by special divine ‘fiat’ rather than by natural causes (which for the theist are created by God), and the "Rare Earth’ argument is not part of the fine-tuning observation made by cosmologists.

Depends on what you mean by the “fine-tuning” argument. It’s a broad term that encompasses the “Fine-Tuned Universe” theory, the “Anthropic Principle”, and the “Rare Earth” theory. For all intents and purposes, the OP was speaking about the Rare Earth theory rather than the Fine-Tuned Universe theory:
"eo_chibears:

The earth is situated perfectly in the universe to sustain life. If it was a little closer to the sun it would be too hot to sustain life. If it was too far away from the sun it would be much too cold for life.

He/she was speaking specifically about the planet Earth, and how Earth is the only planet in the habitable zone within our solar system. It was to the OP I responded.

On the contrary. In a universe that is made life-friendly by God you would expect life to arise elsewhere than on our Earth. In fact, I wish we would find extraterrestial life, and there are good reasons to assume we will. This would counter the atheistic argument that we are just a chance ‘cosmic fluke’.

You’ve committed circular logic by first asserting that “in a universe that is made life-friendly by God”. That is not how you prove God’s existence, or God creating the universe. You do not argue that “God created the universe, and so he created the universe”. This is the fallaciousness underlining a priori logic, and is contrary to the spirit of this thread which uses a posteriori (deductive) logic: “What principles or phenomena within the universe can we determine and know that God or a divine being created the Earth?”

In addition, if life emerged elsewhere in the universe, that would indicate that life is a product of a mere chemical/physical process rather than one emerging from divine will. It wouldn’t counter the atheistic argument of cosmic luck at all; quite to the contrary, it would strengthen the atheistic argument more - it would indicate that the probabilities were higher than we esteemed it to be, and therefore we human beings aren’t so special as we like to believe we are, or as revelation scriptures purport to be.

The problem I have with typical atheists is that they are not even taking the apparent fine-tuning of our laws of nature seriously – yet all leading atheist and agnostic cosmologists do (hence they mostly embrace the multiverse as an explanatory necessity). Instead they come with all kinds of bogus arguments that show that they don’t understand it. This demonstrates that typical atheists pick and choose the scientific evidence to fit their own worldview, just like creationists do. Debating cosmic fine-tuning with atheists is just like debating evolution with creationists: hopeless and futile. I don’t see much difference in the level of self-inflicted intellectual blind-folding.

What part of this addressed the topic at hand? This is nothing more than flatulence and bluster. Why are you so angry?

 

[karebear92]

In addition, if life emerged elsewhere in the universe, that would indicate that life is a product of a mere chemical/physical process rather than one emerging from divine will. It wouldn’t counter the atheistic argument of cosmic luck at all; quite to the contrary, it would strengthen the atheistic argument more - it would indicate that the probabilities were higher than we esteemed it to be, and therefore we human beings aren’t so special as we like to believe we are, or as revelation scriptures purport to be.

Unless, of course, they are nearly identical to humans in function and believe in the exact same God and claimed that they were saved by Christ. Perhaps that is wishful thinking, however…

But you never know. I presume that God would have revealed himself to them if they were intelligent enough, which a superior species would be, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Depends on what you mean by the “fine-tuning” argument. It’s a broad term that encompasses the “Fine-Tuned Universe” theory, the “Anthropic Principle”, and the “Rare Earth” theory. For all intents and purposes, the OP was speaking about the Rare Earth theory rather than the Fine-Tuned Universe theory:

He/she was speaking specifically about the planet Earth, and how Earth is the only planet in the habitable zone within our solar system. It was to the OP I responded.

Sorry if I misunderstood. From the formulation of what you wrote, it was not clear what you referred to.

You’ve committed circular logic by first asserting that “in a universe that is made life-friendly by God”. That is not how you prove God’s existence, or God creating the universe. You do not argue that “God created the universe, and so he created the universe”. This is the fallaciousness underlining a priori logic, and is contrary to the spirit of this thread which uses a posteriori (deductive) logic: “What principles or phenomena within the universe can we determine and know that God or a divine being created the Earth?”

Why that diatribe and arrogant lecturing about circular logic when it does not even apply? I could have written: “In a universe that is life-friendly you would expect life to arise elsewhere than on our Earth.” I only added “made … by God” in direct response to your “as that would strongly allude to God creating Man specially”. This was not about an argument for creation by God to actually have happened, but about what follows once you assume that. The syntax construct "In a universe that is made life-friendly by God " is a premise, not a conclusion or a proof. You would be right about circular reasoning if I had made the argument that you claimed that I made, but I didn’t.

What part of this addressed the topic at hand? This is nothing more than flatulence and bluster. Why are you so angry?

I am not angry. I am just exasperated about the futile discussions regarding the cosmological fine-tuning argument (not the irrelevant ‘Rare Earth’ argument) that I had with atheists over the years, in which they typically behaved like creationists in the face of evidence for evolution.

 

[JDaniel]

Fair enough, I wasn’t aware that is was so easy to make ‘short work’ of the ‘fine-tuned universe.’

eo:

It’s not.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Don’t worry, it’s not.

*WHAT would you rather believe in, God or the multiverse? It sounds
like an instance of cosmic apples and oranges, but increasingly we
are being told it’s a choice we must make. Take the dialogue earlier
this year between Richard Dawkins and physicist Steven Weinberg in
Austin, Texas. Discussing the fact that the universe appears fine-
tuned for our existence, Weinberg told Dawkins: “If you discovered a
really impressive fine-tuning. … I think you’d really be left with
only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.”

Weinberg went on to clarify that invoking a benevolent designer does not
count as a genuine explanation, but I was intrigued by his either/ or
scenario. Is that really our only choice? Supernatural creator or
parallel worlds?

It is according to an article in this month’s Discover magazine.
"Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one
possible explanation, " writes journalist Tim Folger. “Our universe may
be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an
inconceivably vast multiverse.” Folger quotes cosmologist Bernard
Carr: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”*

From:
mail-archive.com/mythfolk@yahoogroups.com/msg02432.html
(Copied from a ‘New Scientist’ article, only available by subscription.)

Stephen Hawking and other prominent atheist cosmologists have a similar opinion. The apparent fine-tuning is real.

However, this is about the laws of nature, the fine-tuning of physical constants which pertain to the entire universe. It is not about our particular Earth with its fortunate location.

That ‘Rare Earth’ argument does not work. After all, there are about 300 billion galaxies in the universe, each containing about 300 billion stars, and possibly there are as many or more planets. So the chances that at least one, possibly more, planets are by default ‘just right’ for the development of complex, intelligent life might be quite good.

Al:

Or quite bad, considering the non-existence of an actual infinity!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I am not using it for evangelical purposes. Argumentative purposes, to a certain extent. Thank you for your insight, nature stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed is interesting. I will study that more. God bless.

Remember, it cannot be created or destroyed by anything that we know of within the universe. More than that, God has left us a history with a great deal of verisimilitude.

God bless,
jd

 

[eo_chibears]

Remember, it cannot be created or destroyed by anything that we know of within the universe. More than that, God has left us a history with a great deal of verisimilitude.

God bless,
jd

Thank you for your insight. God bless you.

 

[JDaniel]

It’s okay - nobody needs to be an expert to play either side of this argument.

The finely-tuned universe with its perfect blend of characteristics that allow life on Earth include the following.

-Earthquakes that can strike at pretty much any moment, resulting volcanoes that can erupt and burn entire cities to the ground, or spew ash and make the air we breath toxic. If the quake happens in the ocean, that can cause a tsunami to wipe away an entire city in a few hours

ASimon:

How is this a counter-argument? That the earth has a hot core, we know. That it will, from time to time, leak, we know. That material beings will eventually pass away, we know. Yet, it was preceded by LIFE. (And will no doubt be followed by life.) I’m sorry, your conclusion simply doesn’t follow.

-Unpredictable, or at best, semi-predictable weather events (tornadoes, hurricanes, monsoons, lightning strikes) that do all of the above as well.

As I said above.

-2/3 of our planet’s surface is covered by water we can’t safely drink without treating it for its salt content. We also can’t breathe water, which means we can’t live in the water - only on dry land

Hmmm . . . and the oceans are replete with creatures that we can eat. In fact, most usually extraordinarily safe consumables!

-As for that dry land, most of it is entirely too hot, or entirely too cold to support human life without us wearing layers of fabric and living in ready made or constructed shelters to protect us from the elements. Simple thought experiment. Wherever you’re living right now - take away all the buildings and the clothes you’re wearing. Even if you assume a steady food supply and no predators, how long do you think you’d survive in that environment? Or how long would it take you to rethink how our planet is so fine-tuned to support humanity? (Then for added fun, add back in the predators and make food as scarce as it would be normally).

Hmmm . . . with all that against them, I wonder how our predecessors arrived here?

-If dead animals could talk, they would tell you this already, since 99% of all life forms that have ever existed on this planet have already gone extinct. Some of them probably wiped out by meteors or comets hitting our planet (another nice feature of our finely-tuned Universe).

I’d like to see some documentation of this!

-And perhaps the kicker - the Universe took 13.72 billion years to get to where it is right now, the planet we’re living on, and the lives we’re living on it. So in summation, if this is God’s perfect design, my man’s got a lot of explaining to do.

IOW, what you expect is instant gratification. If God does not provide it to you instantaneously, you will withhold belief (in Him)?

That’s just Earth. We didn’t even touch on the perfect design of the human body or the perfect design of the Universe beyond our planet.

Yeah: it is here by pure, unadulterated chance! But even more, a plethora of pure, unadulterated chance!

But none of this is faith! Sorry.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

What is it about my list of items that does not address this assertion that our planet is finely-tuned to allow life? I’m saying it isn’t. Honestly, when I look at the evidence, I think the planet is finely tuned to kill us all, and not miss us after we’re gone. We’re very lucky to be here today, but that’s not at all the same as saying we’re meant to be here today.

ASimon:

We are here by either pure, unadulterated chance (non-homogeneity) or by the thought of God. Really, which of these do you think would bear up to a parsimony requirement?

We don’t need natural disasters causing immense human tragedy and suffering in order to appreciate things like love and free will. We have plenty of opportunities to appreciate love without experiencing catastrophic misfortune.

Have you investigated the lack of growth of the human population on this inhospitable planet? It is a planet that is in decline, I suppose. According to that logic.

God bless,
jd