The whole "God" question is about whether you think Mother Nature is conscious, has a will, makes plans, throws tantrums, and all the other weird stuff we humans do. People who answer "yes" to all that usually believe their God is good and everybody else's God is evil.
Scientists prefer to avoid those questions and concentrate on how things came to be, with or without the help of a conscious supreme being. Most scientists agree the odds of life randomly developing from randomness are 1:1, not 1:1,000,000,000. There are many theories of why.
If you believe in an infinite universe, there must be an infinite number of places similar to Earth.
2007-06-15 19:09:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Everyone seems to think science and religion do not mix or are always at odds against each other. This is far from the truth. Einstein was VERY religious. Even Galileo was he just said the Church was wrong in its beliefs of certain things.
Anyway, the argument stating how unlikely it is that life can form from the group of chemical elements in the universe, and that it can only form in locations with just the right conditions smacks of a divine creator. All science does is try to explain the things the creator made. Only a very small number of scientists throughout history has said there is no creator.
An example of your argument is the whole floating point miscalculation problem Intel experienced a decade ago. There was about a 10 million to 1 chance against the error occurring. Well, after there were about 20 million of their chips in computers around the world, the error instance cropped up quite frequently.
So, yes, statistics would suggest we are not alone. I am not going to say definitively if we are or are not alone OR if there is or is not a creator. [Personally I think there is a creator, but no human invented religion has defined that creator correctly yet.] But, you just know that by asking this question you're going to get a few dozen who will say you're wrong and clueless and a few dozen who will say you're right--all of them missing the point entirely. Enjoy all the responses :P
I will say, by your example, you're right in your assertion.
2007-06-16 01:08:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by quntmphys238 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Dont get caught up in the creation vs. evolution debate if that is where you are going. Understand that whether life was created by random chemicals mixing or not, it has nothing to do with proving or disproving God's existence. We arbitrarily draw a line in science that life begins at a certain time (viruses arent life but bacteria are) despite the fact that both can replicate (one as a parasite and one on its own) and both contain RNA. Also, even if life was created by random chemicals, you still have to ask...who created the atoms that make up the chemicals...who or what caused the Big Bang. God is undefinable and more complex than our feeble minds can comprehend.
2007-06-16 01:38:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Your own reasoning concludes that there is no need for a god to create earth and life. Everything came into place just fine without... him. So if we don´t need a god why bother? With the track record of religion, with the countless depictions of mass murder and genocide in his name in the bible, god doesn´t even deserve our worship even if he did exist.
Life will develop anywhere the conditions are right and stable for hundreds of millions of years at a stretch. It´s all chemistry + energy + time. No deities required.
2007-06-16 05:23:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by DrAnders_pHd 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
God created everthing
2007-06-16 01:03:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
God's the one
2007-06-16 01:41:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nobody knows, so anything you want to say is equally valid. Nobody's belief system trumps anyone else's.
2007-06-16 01:38:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
???
What means 'God'?
Doug
2007-06-16 01:42:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by doug_donaghue 7
·
0⤊
0⤋