The not so beautifull world.. (Earth, evolve, hell, theist)

[Bouncing Ball]

"When you look at this beautifull world and all of it's advanced things like snowflakes and eyes you can just see there must have been a builder.."

I agree with the beautifull world.. But I can't see that this world is so complex that it must have had a builder.

I wonder, for the ones who think this world is so complex that it needs a builder;
What kind of world could exist that looks like as if doesn't need a builder, in your eyes?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem here for many theists will (should) be that the OP draws a distinction between builder and built, leaving no place for an immanent 'God' made manifest by the creative capacity of complex and emergent systems. Also, if we're to use subjective criteria like 'beauty', let me suggest 'interesting' in its stead. So the whys become:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Why is it creative?
3. Why is it interesting?
4. Why is it comprehensible?

[nutshell]

I never thought complexity was a requirement for demonstrating that there was a Builder. Some of the most interesting and beautiful things in the world are also the simplest.

Example: A single cloud in the sky.

[tomspug]

A philosopher can look at a tree and say 'this is not a tree'. But I'm not going to argue with him.

Neither will I argue with someone that looks at a planet that if were moved but one point farther or one point closer to the sun, no life would exist. If the moon were not in such a position, night would be devastating, if the chemical balance in the atmosphere were not such, there would be no plant or animal life, if the earth did not rotate at such an angle and speed life could not exist either, if the were not an ecological balance of plate movement, animal and plantlife, a particular design to biology to be able to utilize the atmosphere perfectly to then be able to find suitable sustenance in the world around it that there is also a suitable environment to continue a food chain cyclically, and say that that planet does not have order, I will not argue with him either for the same reason.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Neither will I argue with someone that looks at a planet that if were moved but one point farther or one point closer to the sun, no life would exist.

If there is evidence that life once existed on Mars, which is much further from the sun than Earth, how can life be as sensitive to Earth's position as you say?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by tomspug

A philosopher can look at a tree and say 'this is not a tree'. But I'm not going to argue with him.

Neither will I argue with someone that looks at a planet that if were moved but one point farther or one point closer to the sun, no life would exist. If the moon were not in such a position, night would be devastating, if the chemical balance in the atmosphere were not such, there would be no plant or animal life, if the earth did not rotate at such an angle and speed life could not exist either, if the were not an ecological balance of plate movement, animal and plantlife, a particular design to biology to be able to utilize the atmosphere perfectly to then be able to find suitable sustenance in the world around it that there is also a suitable environment to continue a food chain cyclically, and say that that planet does not have order, I will not argue with him either for the same reason.

All fine-tuning arguments (which is what this is) contain the same fundamental mistake: They assume that the environment was created for specific forms of life, instead of that they life evolved to fit that environment. While you don't have to accept the latter, as I do, you certainly cannot argue that it must be the former, as there is no reason to suppose this. In fact, it makes perfect sense that life would evolve to fit its environment.
Mr. Puddle: "Wow, check out this neat hole around me! Isn't it nice that someone designed this hole just for me? Look, it's the exact right size to fit me, and it goes up and down just where I do. Good thing there's a beneficent and all-powerful God who makes holes just for us puddles! Blessed be." Well maybe, Mr. Puddle, and maybe you just filled in the hole that was there.

[lunamoth]

I don't know about evidence for a builder, but the kind of beauty I see in the world is made more wonderous by the underlying elegance of simplicity in the physical laws that govern it.

[Bouncing Ball]

Originally Posted by nutshell

I never thought complexity was a requirement for demonstrating that there was a Builder.

It isn't, Not a requirement, more like a reason..

[tomspug]

I find beauty itself pretty hard to argue with. It stirs something in my soul, which doesn't have anything to do with my mind. I think many people here know what I'm talking about. It's the kind of beauty you can only find in things that cannot be claimed by anyone in particular, like the birth of a baby. Sure, you can argue the biology of it and say that you, the father or the mother, were responsible for it, but the mystery of the whole process is itself stirring and emotional.

[Bouncing Ball]

Yeah, feeling. Ok I have those too, but that doesn't make this world so advanced that it needs a builder ofcourse..