i hear a lot of god worshipers say that if we were closer or futher away from the sun there would be no life on earth. But this argument makes little sense to me. If there was no life on the planet there would be no one here to wonder we we are 93 million miles from the sun. Isnt it the case that if there are millions of planets orbiting millions of stars - some will be the correct distance apart for life to develop?
2006-08-29 03:25:28 · 20 answers · asked by aurora03uk 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
why wont god listen to me?
2006-08-29 03:28:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The argument is asinine. It starts by presuming there is purpose to life on earth, and then concludes that since there is life on earth it must have purpose.
Even worse, there is no proof life could only have developed on earth right where it is. Sure, life would not be the SAME as it is if the earth were in a different orbit, but that doesn't imply there would be no life.
2006-08-29 03:29:59 · answer #2 · answered by lenny 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It isn't just about distance from the nearest star, although that plays a big part. Theere are huge amount af variables that lead people like myself to conclude that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.
Your birth is an amazing bit of chance and you and I will be long dead as others wonder the joy of life.
2006-08-29 03:31:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It just means that we happen to be the right distance for life to grow. People always mistake coincidence with miracle. If anything happens that doesn't have a high probability of happening Christian's always explain it by saying it was a miracle or that it proves God's existence. If you win the Lotto, your probability was very low (probably 1 in 20,000,000 or so) but is it a miracle, or did the ping pong balls just happen to fall right? People read to much into things.
2006-08-29 03:34:27 · answer #4 · answered by advgman52 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All nature speaks volume of the existence of God, even the heavenly bodies. Yes ome will be the correct distance but who is to same that there isn't one or many out there with that criteria and even life on them.
Romans 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
2006-08-29 03:35:48 · answer #5 · answered by Damian 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes your right to far in we would cook to far out we would be frozen and yes if there was another planet with the right desistence from its star then life could be possible are life is carbon life but other life maybe built on another chemical!
2006-08-29 03:42:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As clearly as the distance between Cleveland, Ohio and Rochester, New York.
2006-08-29 03:32:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that it means that life as it is now could not evolve but life would have evolved differently to accomodate the different climates that would arise. this must mean that there is no spititual thinghs involved and that it is all scientifical but people can think what thy want.
2006-08-29 03:33:38 · answer #8 · answered by horsiluva 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
GOD DOES NOT NEED THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST. GOD EXISTED BEFORE, EXISTS NOW AND WILL DO AFTER THE UNIVERSE STOPS TO EXIST. GOD IS THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE. SOME WILL NEVER ACCEPT/UNDERSTAND THIS.
2006-08-29 05:36:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
God works in funny ways.
2006-08-29 03:30:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is not convincing, still God exists beyond all human arguments.
2006-08-29 03:32:50 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋