Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Others have argued that because the universe is so ‘obviously’ fine-tuned for life there must be a creator whose intention was to create life and this (somehow) makes us the primary concern of said creator.
This present argument is the inverse of the fine-tuning argument. It says that because the conditions that lead to life are so preposterously unlikely, but life does exist on one of the quintillion or so planets, it must have been a specific act of a creator to make a planet with life on it, and this supposedly makes us the primary concern of said creator.
This argument talks about the entire universe to ‘prove’ a point. You cannot invoke this argument and then refuse to talk about the entire universe when it suddenly becomes inconvenient to do so. The argument postulates a creator who made the whole universe and then went to the extra trouble to make a planet unlike the rest of the universe. Why did this creator make such an incredibly vast universe that is (according to the argument) unsuitable for the likes of us in the first place? And then make one (1) planet that is suitable for life? If there is a creator we are only an afterthought … or maybe just an accidental side effect.
This argument does a poor job of supporting the idea of a creator. But if there is a creator it demonstrates that we are of little consequence (if any at all) in the mind of the creator. And more to the almost always unstated point, it not only does not support the idea that one specific religion is ‘true’, it argues strongly against the validity of any religion at all.
I see your point what you are saying but you are misinterpreting the article. You are going off the premise that world was created by this improbable event. The problem with this argument against is, if we take it as a valid, then how does it explain the chances of this one planet having life but the sign of life in other places being unproven? The article isn't about proving creationism, it's about showing that an argument against it is not as clear as people have made it. It's actually quite challenging.
Your counter point is hung up on the idea about a creator creating this one unique place, but honestly again, if we didn't create that place, then how do we explain why those other places were created from a creator's point of view? You are asking questions that none of us have the ability to answer. Your thought process through this is presumptuous because you assume that we are an afterthought and that having one place in the universe capable of life is wrong, but there is nothing to substantiate that point. That is just your opinion.
I see your point what you are saying but you are misinterpreting the article. You are going off the premise that world was created by this improbable event. The problem with this argument against is, if we take it as a valid, then how does it explain the chances of this one planet having life but the sign of life in other places being unproven? The article isn't about proving creationism, it's about showing that an argument against it is not as clear as people have made it. It's actually quite challenging.
Your counter point is hung up on the idea about a creator creating this one unique place, but honestly again, if we didn't create that place, then how do we explain why those other places were created from a creator's point of view? You are asking questions that none of us have the ability to answer. Your thought process through this is presumptuous because you assume that we are an afterthought and that having one place in the universe capable of life is wrong, but there is nothing to substantiate that point. That is just your opinion.
I am not assuming anything. I am pointing out that the argument does not work. The more unlikely we are, the less likely it is that we are anything special to a creator The argument is that it is so unlikely that we exist by chance that a creator had to specifically arrange conditions for this one planet to make us. So why did the creator make the universe in such a way that we are impossible without special intervention? Either we are of negligible importance in the creator's plan, or with a quintillion potentially suitable planets around we are not all that improbable after all. (Also keep in mind that is the visible universe. No one knows how large the entire universe is.)
And as an aside - the more credence is given to this argument the less credible the fine-tuning argument becomes. But neither argument provides any support for religion as other than a purely human enterprise without any external referent. And without a supernatural connection for religion, who cares if God exists or not?
I am not assuming anything. I am pointing out that the argument does not work. The more unlikely we are, the less likely it is that we are anything special to a creator The argument is that it is so unlikely that we exist by chance that a creator had to specifically arrange conditions for this one planet to make us. So why did the creator make the universe in such a way that we are impossible without special intervention? Either we are of negligible importance in the creator's plan, or with a quintillion potentially suitable planets around we are not all that improbable after all. (Also keep in mind that is the visible universe. No one knows how large the entire universe is.)
And as an aside - the more credence is given to this argument the less credible the fine-tuning argument becomes. But neither argument provides any support for religion as other than a purely human enterprise without any external referent. And without a supernatural connection for religion, who cares if God exists or not?
You aren't reading my responses. This is the 3rd time you asked this question and again I will say that, for you as a mere human being, you knowing that answer is not important nor does it make that design invalid. If there is a creator (which I believe there is) and he created the universe the way he did, then who are you to question that? You are questioning this based on your own preconceived idea of what the universe should be like. Why should your thought process matter? This does not challenge the idea of a creator creating our world, it challenges the idea of how you think the world should be created.
You aren't reading my responses. This is the 3rd time you asked this question and again I will say that, for you as a mere human being, you knowing that answer is not important nor does it make that design invalid. If there is a creator (which I believe there is) and he created the universe the way he did, then who are you to question that? You are questioning this based on your own preconceived idea of what the universe should be like. Why should your thought process matter? This does not challenge the idea of a creator creating our world, it challenges the idea of how you think the world should be created.
It would appear that you are not reading my responses. You are postulating a creator based on life supposedly existing on this one planet because the rest of the universe is so hostile to life that it had to be an act of special creation. Why is the universe so hostile to life? Who made it that way? Obviously we are not the main purpose of the universe. If we were then the universe would have been made for us, which you argue it was not. If there is a creator we are not of great concern to him. And since the original argument implied that we are of primary importance, the whole argument then falls apart.
You want to use the nature of the universe to point to the existence of God but you do not want anyone else to use the nature of the universe to show that the argument makes no sense.
It would appear that you are not reading my responses. You are postulating a creator based on life supposedly existing on this one planet because the rest of the universe is so hostile to life that it had to be an act of special creation. Why is the universe so hostile to life? Who made it that way? Obviously we are not the main purpose of the universe. If we were then the universe would have been made for us, which you argue it was not. If there is a creator we are not of great concern to him. And since the original argument implied that we are of primary importance, the whole argument then falls apart.
You want to use the nature of the universe to point to the existence of God but you do not want anyone else to use the nature of the universe to show that the argument makes no sense.
Okay, you clearly have some deeply rooted hatred/malice towards God. All your answers come of as if you think we are being punished. Who says we are being harm? What is your definition of harm? How is the universe hostile to life when we are living? Who said we had to go to other parts of the universe just because we were created? Isn't that your own opinion? Everything you are saying is based on your own personal opinion, which is your choice, but you are using your opinion to argue facts and that's where I have to disagree. Unless you can answer these questions and point to some type of objective source, there is no way we can take your argument as a basis of claiming that a creator didn't create this earth because everything you are saying is based on an idea of a creator who is punishing us by only being able to live on this one planet and there is nothing that I can see that would reasonable conclude that we should be able to live in any part of the universe.
Okay, you clearly have some deeply rooted hatred/malice towards God. All your answers come of as if you think we are being punished. Who says we are being harm? What is your definition of harm? How is the universe hostile to life when we are living? Who said we had to go to other parts of the universe just because we were created? Isn't that your own opinion? Everything you are saying is based on your own personal opinion, which is your choice, but you are using your opinion to argue facts and that's where I have to disagree. Unless you can answer these questions and point to some type of objective source, there is no way we can take your argument as a basis of claiming that a creator didn't create this earth because everything you are saying is based on an idea of a creator who is punishing us by only being able to live on this one planet and there is nothing that I can see that would reasonable conclude that we should be able to live in any part of the universe.
No, I have no hatred of or malice toward God, even if there is one. What sense would that make? If there is not a God, what is there to hate? If there is a God, I fail to see any connection with religion, so why hate? And I have never expressed any hatred of any religion in any of my posts.
Nor have I said anything whatsoever about being punished, or implied any such thing or given any reasonable cause for anyone inferring such a thing. Punished by living on a planet rather suitable for us, even if not perfect? That does not even make sense.
The vast majority of the universe is hostile to life being mostly vacuum or intensely hot stars or unformed dust clouds or black holes or planets not at all suitable for life. This planet is an extreme rarity and the result of the collision of rather improbable circumstances. The argument given is that this requires special intervention of the part of a creator. But if there is a creator, it is clear that the purpose of the universe, if such there be, does not involve us to any noticeable extent. Otherwise why create all the rest of the universe?
You presented an argument alleged to point to the existence of a creator. I pointed out that this argument does not really do any such thing. Furthermore, if taken seriously it robs any religion that claims we are something really special of any authority. If you want to debate those points go right ahead. But don't present an argument and demand that it be accepted without someone pointing out the flaws.
I once had my doubts about there being a god but college in a public school took care of that for me. Biology 101 convinced me there had to be an intelligent designer. I do not understand how anyone can look at the complexities of life and still have enough faith to doubt it was by design and not random happenstance.
I once had my doubts about there being a god but college in a public school took care of that for me. Biology 101 convinced me there had to be an intelligent designer. I do not understand how anyone can look at the complexities of life and still have enough faith to doubt it was by design and not random happenstance.
Can you look at the human appendix and still maintain that faith? Before modern surgery, the human appendix killed a significant portion of the population. Is that is intelligent design?
Can you look at the human appendix and still maintain that faith? Before modern surgery, the human appendix killed a significant portion of the population. Is that is intelligent design?
Current thinking is that the appendix could be a storage place for beneficial gut bacteria, needed for effective digestion, that get lost during diarrhea. Ref If this is the case, then as with all the products of evolution it is a trade-off that tilts the genetic reproduction statistics in the more favorable direction.
Can you look at the human appendix and still maintain that faith? Before modern surgery, the human appendix killed a significant portion of the population. Is that is intelligent design?
Of course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
