That’s something that may not be limited to humans. There are other life forms that also seem to have some affinity to visually arranging their environments in certain ways. Of course due to some communication barriers between humans and such animals it is difficult to conclude with confidence that the affinity these animals have to such visual arrangements is analogous to what we call “beauty.”
The question might just as easily be asked as to why this Fine-Tuner needs to go to such trouble in the first place? Let’s suppose that the Moon serves some necessary function, and without it, the Earth would cease to be. Why didn’t the Fine-Tuner alter the laws of physics from the outset, that in turn would render irrelevant any need for a Moon to revolve around the Earth?
Perhaps you shouldn’t. But nothing I could say will convince you. Try assuming it is not designed, and assuming God IS, You will inevitably reach some more useful conclusions if you persist, albeit it must be mightily.
Thank you, that is very interesting and informative! I hadn’t thought to question the frequency of the phenomenon, simply because it seemed remarkable to me.
Yes indeed, but say we follow the ID logic, something that is improbable is designed, and therefore has a purpose. I was curious to see what meaning the moon would have under this interpretation.
I guess the thing with Design is that we don’t know how likely to occur without design the phenomena are that we think are remarkable.
Of course not, especially if one is not an accomplished contemplative. But just because we are organized to see design, like faces in tree bark or pizza, or animals in the clouds, doesn’t mean that it is deliberately there as a planed, though-out design. If we impose such a restriction on the wonders of the Universe and the Creator, we are substituting our own emotional needs for explanation over the possibility of a mature investigation into what is very much more wonderful and infinitely greater than any cloak of figuring out we can put over it to make ourselves feel good. I’d rather feel the suspense and look inside things than adopt a hypothesis and fool myself into thinking I know. In my book, not very courageous, practical, or devotional to do that. Not very respectful of the infinitude of the Creator, either.
Yes, few people do. For instance, not but a few years ago we were scientifically sure that there were other planets out there, hypothetically. With new instruments which extend our senses, we now are sure that there are at least 700, and that tends to verify that the idea that there are billions of planets, about one for each star, just in our galaxy. And ours is an average sized one of billions of galaxies. Yet it is so large that if Jesus pointed a laser toward the edge of our galaxy, which we are pretty near, so to speak, the light from that laser would not yet have go to the edge even today! So if we wrote out 100,000,000,000 (about the # of satrs in our galaxy) and multiplied it by 100,000,000,000, (a low estimate of galaxies in the visible universe,) nwe would get 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 as a short estimate of how many planets we would need to check to see how actually unique ours is. I have no doubt that ours is very very unique, but do you want to start now checking all the others? If you checked one per second, it would only take you 450,000,000,000 years. Ready? GO!Thank you, that is very interesting and informative! I hadn’t thought to question the frequency of the phenomenon, simply because it seemed remarkable to me.
Wiki has a list of the known tidally locked bodies.Thank you, that is very interesting and informative! I hadn’t thought to question the frequency of the phenomenon, simply because it seemed remarkable to me.
Why waste time beating the dead horse of Paley? The watchmaker argument makes as much sense as eliminative materialism. As a philosopher, I find the argument insulting by inferring “god of the gaps”, such a poor argumentative point, while “naturalism of the gaps” is the more logical by use of induction of other reducible natural principles and ockham’s razor. As a Catholic, I find the argument twofold insulting as if God wasn’t intelligent enough from the beginning to create natural order to explain and account for nature and required His direct intervention at certain points to steer physics and biology to His plan. Yeah, you read that right. Paley’s argument indirectly infers that God isn’t omniscience and one could demonstrate how this would infer He is not timeless. Not surprised though, the simpleton rejected formal and final causes so it’s no wonder his brainless argument can be used against him by his opponents.