It really is hard to argue against there being a God if you take a good look at the earth. How can you argue?

Question

with this?

The moon is in the exact place it should be for life to exist on earth. The Sun is the exact place it should be for life to exist. The earth is tilted at just the right angle. The earth is racing along in space at an incredible pace and we don't fly off. The force of gravity is set at just the right amount so we neither float away or find it too difficult to get up ETC

Really - it is hard to argue that there is not a design going on here. And if there is a design there must be a creator.

God bless

Ryan - where did you get that info about the moon - that is bizarre

Answer 1

NONE of that is evidence of a god. The WHAT doesn't indicate a WHO or a HOW. No need to extrapolate unnecessarily.

Answer 2

I can see you know squat about Earth.

The moon was once part of Earth. A huge metorite hit Earth and a big chunk of Earth aplit off and became the moon. We dont fly off the Earth because it is spinning at such a fast pace that it holds us down. Think of it like the space ailen ship ride at fairs and amusement parks. Gravity is not "set" - gravity is created because the Earth is spinning so fast. There is less gravity on the moon because it doesnt spin as fast as Earth does.

I am a Christian by the way. I just know how the Earth was created and such. Maybe you should pay more attention in school or something.

Answer 3

That's some bad logic. You're assuming a reason for your existence.

If any of those factors did not exist, we wouldn't be here to discuss this issue. That's true. And there are nearly infinite stars and solar systems in our universe, which we can see. The chances that at least one planet in those infinite systems happened to fall into an orbital pattern and have the right chemicals to set things up in a way that life could form is pretty good when you do the math. After all, you're working with a nearly unlimited number of options.

The other 8 (or 7) planets in our solar system are not needed for life to exist.

Conceivably, there is another planet out there with intelligent life and they sit around and say "Look! Our planet forms a perfect figure-8 orbital pattern around our sister stars for life to exist! There MUST be a God!"

Answer 4

You're putting the effect before the cause.

If Earth was further or closer, then life would not exist because conditions would not have been favorable.

Life exists because Earth is the distance from the Sun that it is. Earth is not the distance from the Sun so that life could form.

You are right though -- evidence of design is evidence of a designer. So, let's see some evidence of design which does not rely on a logical fallicy.

Answer 5

You find it hard because you are ASSUMING that something created everything without ANY PROOF.

If you believe the in bibile as literal than you also believe in Dragons.

Revelation 12:3-9
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth . . . And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

So, is the bible a metaphor for a bronze age people's understanding of the universe or is it literally true?

Answer 6

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

1. The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.

We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.

Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.

2. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?

3. Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).

How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.

4. The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.

5. If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.

6. Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).

7. In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

Links:
Drange, Theodore M. 2000. The fine-tuning argument revisited (2000). Philo 3(2): 38-49. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html

Stenger, Victor J. 1997. Intelligent design: Humans, cockroaches, and the laws of physics. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

Stenger, Victor J. 1999 (July). The anthropic coincidences: A natural explanation. The Skeptical Intelligencer 3(3): 2-17. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html

Weinberg, Steven. 1999. A designer universe? http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
References:

1. Drange, Theodore M. 2000. The fine-tuning argument revisited (2000). Philo 3(2): 38-49. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html
2. Kane, G. L., M. J. Perry, and A. N. Zytkow. 2000 (28 Jan.). The beginning of the end of the anthropic principle. New Astron. 7: 45-53. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0001197
3. Klee, Robert. 2002. The revenge of Pythagoras: How a mathematical sharp practice undermines the contemporary design argument in astrophysical cosmology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 331-354.
4. Livio, M., D. Hollowell, A. Weiss and J. Truran. 1989. The anthropic significance of the existence of an excited state of 12C. Nature 340: 281-284.
5. Nakamura, Takashi, H. Uehara, and T. Chiba. 1997. The minimum mass of the first stars and the anthropic principle. Progress of Theoretical Physics 97: 169-171. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9612113

Further Reading:
Goldsmith, D. 2004. The best of all possible worlds. Natural History 113(6) (July/Aug.): 44-49.

Answer 7

If there is design, than there must be creator.

That's an icky little argument. Simply because the earth is pretty good for life does not imply that a "Creator" had to make it so.

Answer 8

I dont think of science with the god disscusions but think about humans and life. Why would god make everybody suffer unless of corse there is no god. Also god would probably have sent a message somehow to earth if he was real to clear up this arguement.

Answer 9

If the conditions are right, you can see God at the end of the day. He shows himself in a blaze of glory against a color strewn canvas inthe sky. The glint of sunlight as it pierces the clouds and shoots to the earth in the promise of another day coming.

Answer 10

The Bible tells us that God has clearly revealed Himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and in the hearts of people (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The problem is that the human race is sinful; we all reject this knowledge of God and rebel against Him (Romans 1:21-23). Apart from God's grace, God would give us over to the sinful desires of our hearts, allowing us to discover how useless and miserable life is apart from Him. This He does for those who reject Him (Romans 1:24-32).
In reality, it is not that some people have not heard about God. Rather, the problem is that they have rejected what they have heard and what is readily seen in nature. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” This verse teaches an important principle: everyone who truly seeks after God will find Him. If a person truly desires to know God, God will make Himself known.

Answer 11

Yes all the stars in the known universe are mapped and tracked.Galaxy cluster move in a path.
Single-celled plants and animals eat,reproduce,etc.
Why can't man (with His self-centered genius) make something like a virus.