The one fact that ruins the fine-tuning argument (revisited)

[tonyrey]

I agree, another topic for another time.

There is a thread which covers a multitude of issues: **Creationism and life in general. **

 

[Prophesy]

There is a thread which covers a multitude of issues: **Creationism and life in general. **

I was actually looking through that topic. I was 100% sure I posted in it, but I can’t find my post.

-Prophesy

 

[tonyrey]

I was actually looking through that topic. I was 100% sure I posted in it, but I can’t find my post.

-Prophesy

There are five sections of threads. How long ago?

 

[tonyrey]

There are five sections of threads. How long ago?

I hope I haven’t confused you. I meant there are five sections of that particular thread.

 

[tonyrey]

“It is more likely that evolution is a random process with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. **It is not clear that intelligence has any long term survival value. Bacteria and other single cell organisms will live on if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence was an unlikely development for life on Earth from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time: two and a half billion years **to go from single cells to multi cell beings who are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis that the probability for life to develop intelligence is low. In this case we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy but **we are unlikely to find intelligent life.” - **Stephen Hawking

brembs.net/SWH.html

The occurrence on this planet of five major mass extinctions and many smaller ones demonstrates that the** survival of life on this planet for more than three billion years has been against overwhelming odds**. The origin of life must also have been against overwhelming odds in view of its extreme rarity and complexity in an apparently pointless universe. The mere fact that purpose seems to be extremely rare reinforces rather than ruins the fine-tuning argument!

To disagree is to deny the cold facts. It amounts to denying the significance of reason - which undermines the value of all conclusions about the nature of reality.

 

[tonyrey]

Basically, this universe seems much more likely supposing that life was not its purpose.

We don’t have enough knowledge to reach that conclusion!

Life is in a constant struggle to survive and adapt to this unforgiving universe!

The survival of life for millions of years in spite of this fact requires explanation.