- If the balance of the Four Fundamental Forces of nature (gravity, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force) was not exactly as it is we would not be here.
- If the moon was not exactly the size it is, have exactly the mass it has, and be exactly the distance it is from Earth we would not be here?
- If the Earth was not exactly the size it is, have exactly the mass it has, and be exactly the distance it is from the Sun we would not be here?
- If the rate of rotation of the Earth was not exactly what it is (24 hours) we would not be here?
- If the length of time it takes for the Earth to orbit around the Sun (365.25 days) was not exactly what it is we would not be here?
- If the tilt of the Earth’s axis was not exactly what it is (including a slight wobble) we would not be here?
- If the Earth was not surrounded by a powerful protective magnetic field (generated by subterranean movement of its outer core) we would not be here?
- If the gaseous proportional diversity and density of the Earth’s atmosphere was not exactly what it is we would not be here?
- If the Milky Way Galaxy was not exactly the size and kind it is (spiral) we would not be here.
- If the Earth was not located exactly where it is the Milky Way Galaxy we would not be here?
- If the Milky Way Galaxy were not located exactly where it is in relation to its galactic cluster of other galaxies we would not be here?
- If the speed of the expansion of the universe was not exactly what it is we would not be here?
- If stars did not make heavy elements in their fusion cores we would not be here.
- If the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry, were not fined tuned exactly as they are we would not be here?
- If the speed of light were not exactly what it is (and it always is) we would not be here?
This is why there is no intelligent life on Mars, nor likely anywhere else, but here on Earth.
Isn’t it an amazing “coincidence?”
This is nothing but a long winded way to arrive at the old fine tuning argument. The problems with that can be easily explained by Douglas Adams puddle analogy. If a puddle of water were to suddenly become sentient, it very well might consider its own shape and the shape of the hole it is filling. “Look at that!” our puddle exclaims. “This hole is exactly the shape needed for me to exist as I do. If it were different in the least degree, I would not exist!” I hope the conclusion here is plain. The puddle’s shape is determined by the shape of the hole, the hole was not made so that the puddle would have a certain shape.
The universe is what it is. We developed inside it so we conform to it as it is. Just as the puddle conforms to the shape of the whole, we conform to the universe. If the universe were different, so would be any life that developed.
It is no “coincidence”.
I must also point out that you make many factual errors. For instance, you said that the Earth has to be the exact distance it is from the sun or life would not exist. Really? Exact on what date? As the Earth processes through it’s elliptical orbit, the distance varies between 147 and 152 million kilometers. That’s 5,000,000 kilometers. A bit over 3.1 million miles. Hardly exact. The habitable zone where liquid water and thus life as we know it can exist is even wider.
William: I appreciate your comments. Yes, my statements are indeed examples of the fine-tuning of the universe argument. It is an exquisitely valid argument for the existence of a creator God. Your argument is a form of the Weak Anthropic Principle which simply says we are here because the universe is just right for us to be here. That is true, but it is circular reasoning. It does not really explain why the universe is so “just right.” For all the factors to line up exactly (or very close as you point out) requires a plan and a designer.
Scientist Fazale Rana lists 153 parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. His article was written in 2004. (https://reasons.org/publications/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-updated-june-2004/) Those parameters are now know to be many more and much narrower.
As astronomer Hugh Ross comments on the the search for inhabitable exoplanets in the Milky Way Galaxy: “The presumption back in 1995 was that astronomers would find many exoplanetary systems where the probability of advanced life possibly existing in that system would be greater than zero. More than twenty-three years later, with a database of 2,888 planetary systems and 3,877 planets, only one planetary system and only one planet possess the characteristics that the possible existence of advanced life needs. It requires little effort to discern the identity of that single planetary system and single planet.” (https://reasons.org/rare-solar-system-gets-rarer/)
Ross also states:“With considerable security, therefore, we can draw the conclusion that even with a hundred billion trillion stars in the observable universe, the probability of finding, without divine intervention, a single planet capable of supporting physical life is much less than one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. The odds actually are higher that the reader will be killed by a sudden reversal in the second law of thermodynamics.{387} HABITABLE”
― Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God
BTW: You may want to check out a new book: “Return of the God Hypothesis” by Stephen C.Meyer. He examines in detail the philosophical history of science and some of the fine-tuning issues: the origin of the universe; the origin of life; the origin of DNA information; etc. He demonstrates that the currently known facts of science defy the old “God of the gaps” objection and lead to a theistic worldview as the only reasonable conclusion.
–Tal Davis
Circular reasoning? Not at all. You are assuming that we as a species are the goal of the universe. The fact is the universe as we can see it has no goal or purpose that can be ascertained. That assumption is unsupported. As it happens, we exist. That is possible because of the way the universe exists. This is just nonsense. Your position requires the presupposition that a god exists and created the universe with us in mind.
I notice that you did not reply to the one “fact” you presented I showed to be false. Must I do another one?
This is a failed response. Please try again.
William:
I don’t really want to get into an extended online debate about details. The point is that your position means, and I think you know this, that there is no meaning or purpose to your life. The universe will eventually burn out and everything humanity has ever learned or done will be extinguished forever. When we die, we become nothing (actually we are already nothing but complex arrangements of atoms). Therefore, what we do in this life has no real consequence. Concepts like truth, justice, right, wrong, good, and evil have no real meaning. Human free will is nothing more than an illusion.
Without God (and I believe there is a growing body of objective evidence for His necessary existence) we have no foundation for anything of value.
“Nothing really matters. Nothing really matters at all.” Queen
–Tal Davis
I would expect that you would not want a debate on the details. You would loose.
Why would you think that life has a meaning or purpose beyond what we choose to give it ourselves? Yes, at some point in the future, it is most likely we will be extinct. That is all the more reason to live the life we do have with whatever meaning we can find for ourselves. Yes, when we die, we end. There is no reason or evidence that would lead to any different conclusion. This life has consequences exactly because it is the only one we will ever have. To demean everything we do or say or are to being some prelude to our actual existence later is horrible. I pity you for living in your demon-haunted world.
We are animals that evolved to live in groups and possess the great mysterious gift of consciousness. Thus we understand the value of all the things you listed. If there is a god as you say, none of those things matter. All that matters is the whim of a god that inflicts infinite punishment for finite sins… especially for the horrible breach of not worshipping him.
It is false to say that without god we have no foundation for anything of value. Without your god, you have no foundation for anything of value. I do.
I forgot one thing. Freewill is an illusion? How. We have free will simply because we have no choice but to have it.
In your worldview, free will is only an illusion because everything we do, experience, or think are determined by the inflexible and mindless laws of nature. We think we can choose, but the neurons in our brains can only operate according to the fixed chemical laws that respond to stimuli from our senses. Our consciousness is also an illusion. We just think we think the thoughts we hear in our brains. In your worldview we really cannot be sure if we even exist as a separate and autonomous entity. Our minds and senses may be nothing more than the digital outputs of a super computer. You see, you have to have faith to believe that you and the world even exist.
–Tal Davis
The working of the universe is in no way rigid and inflexible. Random things happen all the time, especially out of complex systems such as our brains. Random things happen all the time in the physical universe, as physics teaches us (well, teaches me… you seem to have missed it).
This is like the whole evolution denial thing… simple ignorance and arrogant certitude.
Of course the idea of a hard solipsism is insurmountable but that counts for every claim you make to. Come on, be serious. You can’t actually think this, can you?
Purpose without God?
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Richard Dawkins, biologist and well know atheist
Ignorance?
“It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one.”
Dean H. Kenyon, biophysicist and origin-of-life researcher.
Of course there is purpose without god. In spite of your inability to grasp it, there is no reason to believe in your god, yet we all have the purposes for our lives that we choose. Dawkins is, as he often is, but that doesn’t mean we as a conscious species can’t make choices.
Kenyon is a creationist, which is an unjustifiable a priori stance. He is doubtless right about many things regarding biological science. He is wrong regarding creationism. It is not science.
I see that you have resorted to quote mining and appeals to authority since you can not defend your views in any other way.
I quoted those two men because they contradict your assertions that there is meaning and purpose for atheists (Dawkins) and that believing in a creator God is ignorance (Kenyon).
William, I think this dialog has run its course. You obviously have more time on your hands than I do. So I wish well.
–Tal Davis