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.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
Quote:
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
This is a compelling argument that lends the notion that I have believed, that regardless of what you believe, it takes faith to believe what happened at the creation of our universe and those non-creationist believers are not exempt.
This is a compelling argument that lends the notion that I have believed, that regardless of what you believe, it takes faith to believe what happened at the creation of our universe and those non-creationist believers are not exempt.
But, but what about life that is not like ours?
Oops, no evidence of such life at all, just speculation. The sand Evolution is built on.
This is a compelling argument that lends the notion that I have believed, that regardless of what you believe, it takes faith to believe what happened at the creation of our universe and those non-creationist believers are not exempt.
So what's the rest of the universe for? Is there is a God, it would appear we are a negligible part of the plan.
So what's the rest of the universe for? Is there is a God, it would appear we are a negligible part of the plan.
Why do we need to what the rest of the universe is for? If we didn't create it and it ultimately doesn't affect us, then why is it necessary for us to know?
Location: In Thy presence is fulness of joy... Psa 16:11
299 posts, read 263,973 times
Reputation: 380
God wouldn't be Almighty if we knew as much as Him.
If He wants to have countless stars (but the Bible says He knows them all by name, so to Him they aren't countless!), galaxies and planets that don't "do" what Earth does...that's His business, isn't it?
Does a 2 year old know and understand everything Mom and Dad do and say? Hardly. There's a vague picture of puny man trying to demand understanding of "why" everything is as it is in all the universe, etc.
I'm glad I can trust the Lord, who "doeth all things well."
You are missing the point here. The idea of a god existing seems more or just as plausible than the notion of all these variables falling in place for life to exist. The argument is that it takes faith to believe many of the things that have been presented as factual but it's not being acknowledged that way.
Why do we need to what the rest of the universe is for? If we didn't create it and it ultimately doesn't affect us, then why is it necessary for us to know?
Also what would make us negligible?
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.
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.
