A letter to the Atheists

[rasor]

The universe is teeming with life if it happend here its likely it happened elsewhere we are probably just never going to meet up with it, we have enough trouble getting to the moon.
The bottom of the oceans is as hard a place to survive as any yet thousands of species manage.
The earth is all we have lets look after it shall we.

For now anyway

 

[Smoke]

Peace be with you all!!

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude?

If I were a believer and didn't know where watches came from, I would conclude that God made the watch. I would build a shrine around it, and other believers would make pilgrimages to it, and we would talk about how it proves the greatness of God.

 

[UnTheist]

If I were a believer and didn't know where watches came from, I would conclude that God made the watch. I would build a shrine around it, and other believers would make pilgrimages to it, and we would talk about how it proves the greatness of God.

Which god was that, again?

 

[rasor]

Which god was that, again?

Doesn't really matter. It works for all gods (2500 at last count)

 

[MaddLlama]

If you find a spork in the street, would you automatically conclude that God exists? After all, someone had to invent the spork.

 

[rasor]

If you find a spork in the street, would you automatically conclude that God exists? After all, someone had to invent the spork.

Just curious,whats a spork ? Never mind,just found out its a combination spoon and fork

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not only does a watch imply a watchmaker; a watchmaker implies a watchmaker mother and a watchmaker father. Thus, we can safely conclude that the designer of the universe must have a mother and a father.

And grandparents. And great grandparents. Right?

Unless this is some special watchmaker that doesn't have parents. Or maybe this is some special watch that doesn't have a watchmaker.

 

[nicholashilliard]

First of all, Sun's working is not complex, neither is Earth's rotation. Sun is simply gases with hydrogen and helium in core and loads of other gases surrounding the core. Biological life is complex. But that does not mean that someone has to create it. The kind of conditions that existed during the early stages of Earth were replicated in the laboratory and amino acids and cell-like structures were formed although the scientists could not initiate life. But they could not create life simply because we do not have complete information about the early Earth. Just because science does not currently have enough facts to correctly describe the creation of life through chemical recations does not mean that there has to be a creator to create life. And tell me, if Creator indeed created life, why didn't he/she do it on other planets as well? Why did the Creator have to create life 13-15 billion years after the creation of the universe?

first, the discussion of a creator isn't about the creation of life but the existence of what exists. so your argument has no validity. you ask to be told "if creator indeed created life, why didn't he/she do it on other planets as well?" if this is your justification for the belief that there is nothing beyond existence than it is somewhat ignorant. it's justifying a fact like 2+2=4 with the etymology of a word. you continue "why did the creator have to create life 13-15 billion years after the creation of the universe?" to presuppose that time exist outside of our existence is ignorant and its futile to argue that it does. the universe is according to scientists with little to no doubt 13.7 billion years old, and to say life was created recently is ridiculous. "life" could easily be defined as beginning with the universe, when those first chemicals began to react. and for time itself; time is merely a dimension, like any other. it only exists within our existence. i cant argue with your justification because you truly don't answer anything, you simply ask questions that you don't and will never understand. sort of like the blind leading the blind or walking out of a door to realize it is a window.

 

[Haydaman]

I cannot imagine life without Him the Almighty

I'm sure you can, because the only reason you're a Muslim is because of pure circumstance. Imagine different circumstances, because I live just fine without the guidance of a divine being.

 

[Haydaman]

first, the discussion of a creator isn't about the creation of life but the existence of what exists. so your argument has no validity. you ask to be told "if creator indeed created life, why didn't he/she do it on other planets as well?" if this is your justification for the belief that there is nothing beyond existence than it is somewhat ignorant. it's justifying a fact like 2+2=4 with the etymology of a word. you continue "why did the creator have to create life 13-15 billion years after the creation of the universe?" to presuppose that time exist outside of our existence is ignorant and its futile to argue that it does. the universe is according to scientists with little to no doubt 13.7 billion years old, and to say life was created recently is ridiculous. "life" could easily be defined as beginning with the universe, when those first chemicals began to react. and for time itself; time is merely a dimension, like any other. it only exists within our existence. i cant argue with your justification because you truly don't answer anything, you simply ask questions that you don't and will never understand. sort of like the blind leading the blind or walking out of a door to realize it is a window.

Chemicals reacting is not life...anyway. His argument does make sense, if you always existed it doesn't seem plausible to start existence so recently. I wonder what he's done with his time since creation...?

 

[kmkemp]

That is your opinion, fair enough. But please explain why you believe your opinion is right, and mine is wrong, before so casually dismissing mine. I deserve some sort of explanation for your opinion, just as you deserve an explanation of mine.

We were fine-tuned for life here because evolution constantly selected the animals best suited for survival. If we had evolved on one of the moons of Jupiter, I have no doubt that we would be saying on this thread: "Life on earth? Don't be silly. It's too close to the sun, we would all be burnt alive." And this might be true for us - after all, we would be far further from the sun than on earth, and we would actually be boiled alive on Earth, no matter how habitable it would actually be for the earth's aliens in this instance.

But we could not dismiss life on earth if we evolved on Jupiter, it would just take a different form to what we were used to. There are scientists who are investigating the possibilities of life on Mars, Venus, and several of Jupiter's moons, such as Titan and Europa. If only one of these bodies has life, it would be quite different, as the conditions in which that life arose would be different. Differences in atmosphere, differences in gravity, and so forth would change the biological appearance of the aliens. Perhaps life on these planets might not be based on carbon, but silicon, or something like that.

There is very good evidence that life in the universe is rare. Just because life exists does not make it any less amazing that it actually occurred. The only thing that would make it unspectacular is if there are an unlimited number of universes.

To give an analogy, think of it this way: your friend tells you a story (and he is telling the truth) about the time that a crazy guy was holding a gun to his head and told him to spin a roulette wheel (and you can insert the odds that life would occur here) and that if he had gotten it wrong, the guy was going to shoot your friend. Since your friend is here to tell you about it, you obviously know that he must have gotten the right outcome from the roulette wheel. Still, it is amazing that he was able to get it exactly right despite astonishing odds.

Good link: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=104505

 

[nicholashilliard]

Chemicals reacting is not life...anyway. His argument does make sense, if you always existed it doesn't seem plausible to start existence so recently. I wonder what he's done with his time since creation...?

first from now on lets not presuppose that an omniscient deity has gender. second, you or i are nothing more than chemicals and we live, correct? we as a culture have to much of a strict definition of life. so instead lets focus on existence. and to wonder what god has done with time since creation is an irrational, childish view of an omniscient force. god is the universe, the universe is part of god. to assume that god is twiddling his thumbs or observing existence is irrational. god's "eternity" cannot be described, except as he relates to humanity, in time. for true eternity is not infinite time, but the complete absence of time. time is part of creation, but god transcends time. god is in time, as he is in all things in creation, but he is over time. god is not "eternal;" rather he is eternity. to god, there is nothing but now, as there is no space but here. eternity and infinity are part of the essence of god. everything else, including time itself, is a finite creation.

 

[rojse]

I would like to question the original analogy, which compares a person to a watch.

I have multiple problems with this. Firstly, a watch is perfect for the function it is designed for. A well-made watch is functional, stylish, and is a status symbol. Agreed, a watch may need repair. But for a good watch, this is quite seldom. It achieves all of the aims of the designer.

People are far from perfect. We suffer from numerous diseases. Many people suffer from birth defects that last a lifetime. Others are born with vestigal limbs (limbs which come from an ancient ancestory). Some people are born with tails, for example. We have glands that do not have any noticeable function. We age, we die. There are many ways we could be designed better.

Secondly, the watch is designed for a specific purpose. It tells us the time, and it is easy to transport around. The rest of the stuff about the watch, such as the style, is incidental.

What purpose is a human designed for? I know that this will go off the track, but I still need to ask. A watch has a purpose, quite obvious from looking. It tells the time. What purpose does a person have? To kill animals? To fill the air with polution? To kill the environment? I cannot tell from looking, no matter how detailed a seach I do. I could do a better job of all of that with an incinerator.

I dismiss the argument that compares a person with a watch on the basis of how a watch works and is designed, and the purpose it serves, and how people don't work, how poorly they were designed, and how we do not have a purpose.

 

[rojse]

I have heard of those principles covered there, and there are more that your website did not cover, possibly due to it's bias towards religious ideas.

Here is a link for a wikipedia article on the same subject. It's not as biased, and it covers many ideas and arguments for and against each idea. It is quite complex, though, so read at your own peril.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Here is an excerpt from that I like. It summarises all of the alternative principles quite succintly, and it simple enough for me to understand.

Paul Davies has discussed fine-tuning at length, and in his book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) he summarises the current state of the debate in detail. He concludes by enumerating the alternative responses:

• A - The absurd universe - It just happens to be that way.
• B - The unique universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being this way. Some 'Theory of Everything' will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
• C - The multiverse - Multiple Universes exist which have all possible combinations of characteristics, and we naturally find ourselves within the one that supports our existence.
• D - Intelligent Design - An intelligent Creator designed the Universe specifically to support complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.
• E - The life principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
• F - The self-explaining universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: 'perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist'.
• G - The fake universe - We are living in a virtual reality simulation.

 

[rasor]

The number of times I've answered that old chestnut about the Rev Paley's watch is starting to grate on my nerves. :thud: