Science and the Bible

[Joshua-777]

I'm telling you that God made it that way. I don't see you going around creating universes.

Do you accept that it is not possible for us to exist in an unsuitable universe?

Can you explain to me what an unsuitable universe is? Do you mean "us" in our current form, or a form that would be suitable for an unsuitable universe?

You're intent on arguing about things that are totally hypothetical. Makes it difficult to give you a straight answer.

An unsuitable universe is one in which the fundamental constants are such that life cannot exist.

True, I agree, We cannot exist in an unsuitable universe, But we do exist, and the universe is suitable, so you can interpret that in 2 ways as to why it is suitable, product of random chance, Or a creator created the universe.

[Joshua-777]

JesusIsLord777

Astronomy shows just how precise our universe really is. It may seem like chaos, but it is acutally pretty systematic.

Naturally. If the universe were disorderly, low entropy, ordered systems like humans wouldn't be alive to point out how chaotic it is. Funny how our universe is suited to our existence .

JesusIsLord777

This can prove a younger universe, because if it is 6.5 billion years old, it would be a lot more chaotic.

Interesting claim, got a site, or some math to support it? Forgive me for being skeptical but it seems like something physicists would have noticed in their age of the universe calculations (they're pretty smart guys).

Actually, JesusisLord777, Genesis does not give an account to when the universe or the earth where created, just to How, the universe could have been around for 100.5 billion years, The Law of entropy applies to this only showing, that it was once in perfect order, before the fall of man, everything was perfect, and now it's slowly winding down. Also Jesus is Lord, nice name, 777 was my wedding date.

And catche, I'm not debating you about the age of the universe because I don't have an answer there, I do agree with entropy in a low rate, my belief on that is that it started after the fall of man, since evil entered the world, I believe evil is the absence of God, Like darkness is the absence of light. After the fall, we where separated from God, and as a system in a whole we are slowly winding down from order to disorder.

[ted]

Naturally. If the universe were disorderly, low entropy, ordered systems like humans wouldn't be alive to point out how chaotic it is. Funny how our universe is suited to our existence rolleyes.gif .

That's because God loves us and wants us to prosper.

So what you're saying is that if God didn't want us to prosper (hypothetically speaking of course), that we would have come to live in a universe that wasn't suited to our existence? Do you see the giant hole in that kind of reasoning?

If God didn't want us to prosper, he wouldn't have created us at all. He didn't create us with suffering in mind Cache.

I said hypothetically didn't I? Still, do you see the hole in reasoning that the suitability of our universe necessitates a God? We would only ever have arisen in a suitable universe, so the fact that we did proves nothing. It doesn't advance the case of either side.

You're a real stick in the mud. If you don't want to believe in God, then why do you spend so much time here?

Because debate is fun. Now instead of questioning my motives, can you answer the question? Debate the point, not the person.

My friend, I find this post very telling. Would you rather debate for the fun of it instead of giving yourself a chance to open up to what the Gospel is?

"Because debate is fun" is a statement which shows you are here merely for the entertainment value rather than to truly search out what God may have for you. Personally, I take minor offense that you would use this site merely for "fun" but I set that aside in the hope that you will find something of value here which is vastly more important than your personal entertainment.

Think, friend, and seek.

In Him,

t.

[artsylady]

The point is that the fact that our universe is suited to us fits equally well with Creationism and Atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side.

When all things are considered the evidence speaks more loudly for a designer.

The earth - perfect distance from the sun, our energy source - further we'd freeze, closer we'd burn. The many atmospheres here that make life habitable. The moon, in conjunction with the perfect tilt, make everything dead wash from the oceans. The 24 hour rotation of the earth, allowing life on all sides to thrive. Gravity, otherwise we'd float away. Water, fit for our consumption. Oxygen for our lungs. Oxygen producing trees and plants. The falling of rain, allowing life to thrive. Plants and trees that provide food. The food chain. The balance of nature - some animals live longer and produce fewer offspring. Animals that live a shorter period produce more offspring. Animals in both land and sea and sky that are strictly scavengers that consume only the dead. DNA - complex encoded information in the cells of every living plant and animal. The ability to adapt to various environments. This is just a slight overview of the many factors that make life habitable on earth. The details make it truly remarkable and speak loudly for design, not accident. Alter one aspect and the earth has huge problems.

[mead]

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, there is no God.

[Gerioke]

The point is that the fact that our universe is suited to us fits equally well with Creationism and Atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side.

When all things are considered the evidence speaks more loudly for a designer.

The earth - perfect distance from the sun, our energy source - further we'd freeze, closer we'd burn. The many atmospheres here that make life habitable. The moon, in conjunction with the perfect tilt, make everything dead wash from the oceans. The 24 hour rotation of the earth, allowing life on all sides to thrive. Gravity, otherwise we'd float away. Water, fit for our consumption. Oxygen for our lungs. Oxygen producing trees and plants. The falling of rain, allowing life to thrive. Plants and trees that provide food. The food chain. The balance of nature - some animals live longer and produce fewer offspring. Animals that live a shorter period produce more offspring. Animals in both land and sea and sky that are strictly scavengers that consume only the dead. DNA - complex encoded information in the cells of every living plant and animal. The ability to adapt to various environments. This is just a slight overview of the many factors that make life habitable on earth. The details make it truly remarkable and speak loudly for design, not accident. Alter one aspect and the earth has huge problems.

Your post is simply a repost of the observation of how well our world is suited to us and the statement that 'all things considered' this points to a designer. It doesn't. Whether we were put here or not, our world will suit our existence with absolutely certainty, because if it didn't, we wouldn't exist.

My question to you, artsy, is could we exist on an unsuitable planet? Obviously the answer is no, the probability of us existing on an unsuitable planet is 0%.

Therefore:

Probability of life existing on a suitable world having been put there by a designer = 100%

Probability of life existing on a suitable world without intelligent intervention = 100%

Therefore this evidence advances neither side as the probabilities are the same.

The difference between your belief and my belief is that you see an unsuitable planet and I see an opportunity for God to create life suitable for what you deem unsuitable.

This being a thread about science vs religion I would think you would consider the scientific projects trying to find life on other planets.

[Gerioke]

Gerioke

The difference between your belief and my belief is that you see an unsuitable planet and I see an opportunity for God to create life suitable for what you deem unsuitable.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side.

That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism.

[Gerioke]

Gerioke

The difference between your belief and my belief is that you see an unsuitable planet and I see an opportunity for God to create life suitable for what you deem unsuitable.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side.

That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism.

But it fits equally well with atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side. You can't claim it invalidates atheism when it simply doesn't.

Yes I can. I just did.

[mikeinsarasota]

Gerioke

The difference between your belief and my belief is that you see an unsuitable planet and I see an opportunity for God to create life suitable for what you deem unsuitable.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side.

That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism.

But it fits equally well with atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side. You can't claim it invalidates atheism when it simply doesn't.

Yes I can. I just did.

Ok, since you clearly missed the point, I'll restate what cache meant and naively thought you could understand. "You can claim it invalidates atheism, if you'd like. You would just be doing so foolishly and committing a logical fallacy."

[Gerioke]

Gerioke

The difference between your belief and my belief is that you see an unsuitable planet and I see an opportunity for God to create life suitable for what you deem unsuitable.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side.

That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism.

But it fits equally well with atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side. You can't claim it invalidates atheism when it simply doesn't.

Yes I can. I just did.

Ok, since you clearly missed the point, I'll restate what cache meant and naively thought you could understand. "You can claim it invalidates atheism, if you'd like. You would just be doing so foolishly and committing a logical fallacy."

Says you. To me it's totally logical. Fooloish is as foolish does.