The universe, designed to support life?

by Elsewhere 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Don't forget the theory of Chaos. What we at one time concidered chaotic,,now thruogh the use of computers and video graphics we fine tremedous order.
  

  Even though we now percieve in even greater detail the orderliness of the universe I feel it is a mistake to conclude that a personality such as the bible god jehovah designed the universe. For if we use the orderliness of the universe as a kind of proof for the existance of a personal type of god ,, we are once again at a dead end because by that same type of logic we would have to conclude some personal type being made god and so it goes on and on for an infinity never reaching a original first cause.

  The safest stand, or position to take is that of the agnostic. Atheist and theist seem to be taking a stand that neither one has proof to substanciate,, and are force to defend their position and not open to just looking at the fact but are trying to force the facts to support their world view.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Another point regarding that analogy of shaking pieces together but never forming a watch. It assumes complete randomness, but that model for life is missing an important element. Along with the randomness, we also have evidence for the involvement of selective pressures. Natural selection can at times mimic intelligence with what it produces. And that it would seem has literally made a world of difference.Selection has even been seen to work on the molecular level. (e.g. RNAs and their self-replication)

  Edit: One of my profs once said: Is the universe adapted to life or is life adapted to the universe?
• 

  Blueblades

  Who created the universe? If we say God, who created God? And then who created the creator of the creator, its a step back ...ad infinitum, its a peeling the onion example------it leads us nowhere.

  Blueblades
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Douglas Adams (an atheist) responded to the "God made the universe just perfect for us" argument by referring to a puddle. Imagine one day a puddle came to life. It looked around its hole, the nooks and crannies that so perfectly carresses its tendrils of water, the perfect temperature that prevented its freezing or evaporating, the perfect placement for not getting stomped on by miscreants. "My!" the puddle would declare, "This hole *couldn't* be an accident! It was designed perfectly to fit me!"
• 

  undercover

  Who created the universe? If we say God, who created God? And then who created the creator of the creator, its a step back ...ad infinitum, its a peeling the onion example------it leads us nowhere.

  I was taught that God has always existed. I remember as a kid trying to wrap my brain around the concept of a God living forever, with no beginning and no end. If God had no beginning then what did he do for the eons of time before he decided to piddle around and create a planet of whiners? If God has always been and we are just a speck in the timeline of his existance, then aren't we kind of full of ourselves thinking that we make a difference in whether good(God) prevails over evil(Satan)?

  edited to add: the watch analogy was sarcasm. I hope ya'll got that.
• 

  Big Tex

  The volume of our solar system is: 8.662 x 10^29 Cubic Kilometers
  The volume of the earth that is capable of supporting life is: 102,643,270,042.213 Cubic Kilometers
  

  A bit of simple division reveals that only 0.0000000000000000012%

  I don't understand all your math. I'm just a caveman.

  The one thing that's always bothered me about the idea of there being no God, is the explanation for the beginning; the beginning of the universe and beginning of life. Forgive me, and I realize this is an oversimplification, but as I understand it current thinking is that the universe began as as a very small but incredibly powerful ball of energy that exploded outward

  Why was the energy there? Where did it come from? And why would anything form?

  My problem with life, is that at some point this theory asks us to believe life sprang from lifelessness. This is, for my caveman mind, difficult to believe. 500 years ago it was believed maggots came from rotting meat (life from lifelessness), and yet now that 'scientific' knowledge is ridiculed.

  Don't get me wrong, I'm troubled by some points in creationism, but I just have a difficult time accepting the whole belief system of either side. Maybe both beliefs have enough facts to think the ultimate answer is somewhere between the two.
• 

  Descender

  Yeah, when I was a kid I could never wrap my brain around a god that had existed forever, being the fact that I was told that, other than the angels, humans were god's only intelligent creation, ever. I thought and thought and could not understand how anything could exist for an infinite past. According to the witnesses, although they don't seem to think about it, before anything was created, god was just sitting around doing nothing in a big pile of nothing, not for a million years, not for a billion years, not a trillion years, but much longer than that, he was sitting around doing nothing for an infinite past twidling his godly thumbs until after an unfathomable eternity decided to make the Universe in just a very short time and then sits around doing nothing for awhile more. I still can't understand that thinking.
• 

  Simon

  I think the point that creationists miss is that the universe is bound to be suitable for the life within it - non suitable life simply wouldn't develop.

  It's like saying that the antartic is perfectly designed to support precipitation in the form of snowflakes. Precipitation manifests itself in the form of snow because that is the only type that the antartic supports ! (well, I'm guessing ... I've never actually been )

  In the same way, the tropics are not designed to support wet rain and not snow ... snow just can't exist there.

  Bottom line is, life has developed to suit the environment that it finds itself in. This has happened all over the planet where we find creatures shaped by their environment.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Concious intelligence and orderly design.

  I see no proof that concious intelligence is need to produce orderly design. I do however see that conscious intelligence is need to recognize orderly design.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Simon,

  Bottom line is, life has developed to suit the environment that it finds itself in. This has happened all over the planet where we find creatures shaped by their environment.

  I agree. Life seems to be constantly adapting to changes as well,,, as long as those changes are not too radical or swift.