Atheists, how does science dispute the idea that the construction of the universe is specifically designed to?

Question

support life here on earth?
Considering all the gravitational forces existing: the rotation of the earth, the orbit of the moon around the earth, the orbit of the earth and planets around the sun, the solar systems journey through the galaxy, the galaxy’s journey through the universe and the universes continuing expansion. Seems to me that they are all perfectly placed to support life here on earth.

I know this question should be asked under a science category but most of you claim to have extensive understanding of matters of complex scientific theory, where simple fundies like me only understand the WORD of GOD.

And please use your own words not pages of cut and paste dribble. The way I see it, if you can’t explain it in your own words then you don’t understand it yourselves

Answer 1

I am not an atheist however I am not convinced that there is a creator so I try to study and learn in order to find the best answer at the moment I would be called an agnostic ( one who is unsure of the truth but is looking for the truth)

There are 2 possibilities:
!) A creator developed this earth so that it would be a great home for all of his creations.
2) Because this planet has such a great environment life has formed and developed on this planet.

Lets just hope that no matter how we got here , MAN does not screw it up.

Answer 2

I am not an Atheist but I do understand why agnostics have doubts and why people have faith. I am not going to get into the faith part of it because that is not the question here. However I will try to explain the other side of the coin. I think 3, has a good point, it is possible that a series of geological factors created a environment that is capable of manifesting life at the most basic form and through evolution over millions of years we know have intelligent life on earth. If you want more specifics on how this could occur goggle abiogenesis. As far as the creation of all matter in the universe, goggle superconductors/super-accelerators, this is a scientific experiment that was terminated before it came to fruition, it was an attempt to proof the theory of how matter can be created for anti-matter at an exponential rate from a single point know as the center of the universe.

I hope this will clarify why people can have doubts.

Answer 3

You have a major problem with your conclusion (statement 3). Even assuming that a purely chaotic system cannot contain intelligence, it does not follow that a system which is not purely chaotic must be intelligent. You've committed the logical fallacy of negating both sides of the premise (here, premise 2). Doing so might be true, but it's not necessarily true, so you cannot have a logically valid conclusion from doing so. Specifically, you've argued: 2 - a purely chaotic system is not intelligent. 3 - therefor a non purely chaotic system is intelligent. Essentially you've taken the negative of both sides of premise 2. This is not valid because 3 is not necessarily true from 2. Consider the same form of argument: 1 - an apple is not a vegetable 2 - therefore something which is not an apple is a vegetable. I've negated both sides of my first premise, the same way you negated both sides of your 2nd premise. Clearly my conclusion is not necessarily true. Many things which are not apples are not vegetables. Your argument suffers from the same flaw. Even if perfect chaos requires the absence of all intelligence, it's not logical to conclude that imperfect chaos is always intelligent. The only necessarily true thing you can conclude from premise 2 is to negate each side and flip the statement. So: 2 - a purely chaotic system is not intelligent. 3 - therefore a system which is intelligent is not a purely chaotic system. That's logical (i.e. the conclusion is necessarily true assuming the premise is true), although it doesn't prove your overall point. In sum, you have not shown that a universe with some patterns and some chaos MUST have some intelligence. You've only argued that a universe with some patterns and some chaos COULD have some intelligence. You have yet to show that ours does. Even assuming that your premise is true, which I'm not sure I accept (but that's beyond the point I'm trying to make here).

Answer 4

I'm afraid you put the cart before the horse. Life evolved on earth in response to the pre-existing conditions. We can show this by seeing how life adapted when conditions on earth were very different. During the Permian Period (290-245 million years ago), arthropods grew to enormous size: dragonflies with 3-foot wingspans, 2-foot long scorpions, and 7-foot long millipedes. All of these creatures exist today, but none even approach that size. Why the change? Back then there was a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere, and the respiratory systems of arthropods could bring in enough oxygen to support that much body mass. Today, with lower atmospheric oxygen content, arthropods can't breathe in enough to get any bigger than they are.

Answer 5

I am angry at atheism and especially since yesterday the news reported that now the atheists want to take out the word "God" from all our anthems, and other governmental sayings, etc. I think we the true Christians should run the atheirsts out of this country which was founded on God and His love. And it says "we the people" in our government too, so we should use that to give us the power to run them off.
First, the other planets, God once had a plan to have them inahabited, but the devil and his angels, who ran the beautifications process of this plan (relatives of the atheirsts nowadays) wanted to be greater than God and sinned in a big way and were rjected by God forever. So therefore those planets will lay barren forever probably too.
Yes as you can see in Genesis, earth is the only planet inhabitable and it is because of God's plan, love and His wondrous ways of knowing how to do everything and science can't explain none of that because science is just a theory and cannot be proven but God is true 100% and He has proven everything He has promised!!

Answer 6

Consider that well over 99% of the universe is practically dead, and does not harbor life of any sort. What about the super large black holes in the center of most galaxies? Or the dark matter that most things are made of, but that is not alive.

There are trillions of planets, trillions of stars, and billlions of galaxies, and none of the few planets we know of in our solar system (except earth) harbor life. It's more likely to me that we were the lucky exception and evolved to meet specific conditions, and that the Anthropic principle makes it difficult to ask questions of the prevalence of life in the universe or of the existence of gods (if we didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to ask the question in the first place).

Also note that homo sapiens are the only species known to have a concept of gods, yet there are billions of lifeforms on our planet that are indifferent to the whole issue. I won't rule it out, I just find the concept incredibly unlikely.

Answer 7

Science does in fact dispute that the universe was "specifically designed" to support life on earth.

Science does not deny the obvious that conditions developed that came to support life. Science just sees a lot of contingent events (event that more or less happened by chance) coming together to result in life.

If you hold to the notion of "design", the designer must take responsibility for where the design results in what appears to be great cruelty. The design of the hawk's talon is perfect for catching its prey. Is this design ideal for the prey?

Since it appears that we are a small part of a relative insignificant solar system in an average galaxy, and since it so far appears there is no other life--what is all this vast array of lifeless waste for?

It is either awfully cold or awfully hot in other parts of the universe.

Answer 8

Life is adapted to fit on this planet. It evolved that way. So saying that the planet perfectly fits the life is proof of design is kind of silly. The conditions on this planet change. We have ice ages and other calamities to deal with. Life either adapts to these changes or dies out. The dinosaurs are an example of this. They could not deal with the change of environment on earth and they are no longer here. The change was brought about by the meteor crash but it still resulted in a change. Other animals were able to adapt and they became dominant.

There is absolutely no evidence to support a god existing. There is evidence to support evolution. In science, saying that god did it does not wash. If that were the case, then we would still be in the dark ages praying that black death would go away.

Answer 9

Is supports life on earth but that doesn't mean it was specifically designed to do so. If the placement wasn't correct, you wouldn't be here to ask about it so you shouldn't be surprised when it seems well-adjusted. Are you surprised that you don't live in the center of the sun? Look at all of the places where you DON'T have life,

Perhaps the range of habitable climates is greater than we thought? Perhaps there are multiple universes, each with different settings. Perhaps the universe can only form in such a way that life is possible.

Answer 10

It's just another way of looking at the problem. You say that all of the factors that enable life to flourish on Earth are evidence of a "designer." The alternative in your mind is to consider the whole thing to be an "accident."

You know, our sun is one of a hundred million million in our galaxy, which is one of a hundred million million in the local cluster of galaxies. (I think I have those numbers about right; at any rate, it's an "astronomical" figure.) That's a lot of opportunity for factors to arise in certain solar systems to enable life to flourish. The question of a "creator" is simply superfluous to science. It doesn't really answer or solve anything; it's just a human way of trying to make sense of something we don't fully understand yet.

Human beings always tend to anthropomorphize the universe. That is, we read human qualities into non-human things. That's how the whole idea of "God" arose. Originally God was a way of ensuring a successful hunt, or controlling the weather. Now He's a way of explaining the observed complexity of the universe. The common thread is that He's always been a means of explaining or controlling things that we don't actually understand or have power to control.