AudioFreak
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 374
I know this sort of thing has been discussed time and time again but I'd like to share some thoughts and get feedback from all sides. So please share any thoughts or criticisms.
I enjoy watching various debates and lectures from theists and atheists alike to hear what other people are thinking and points that they find to be either profound or persuasive. Sometimes I hear theistic arguments that aren't getting what I'd consider to be good retorts from the atheistic speakers so I have decided to ramble a bit about it.
The point being made, most often by Dinesh D'Souza and usually admired by widely respected (and disrespected) people such as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, is that the universe just happens to be such that things work. That if one of the many laws or forces in nature were just the slightest bit altered, in that case we would never have existed. Along the same lines, from the ID camp, it's known as irreducible complexity in biology. The notion that some organisms exist in such a way that if any of their parts is removed, they cease to function altogether. Bacterial flagellum is the most common. I'm going to stick with the physics/astrology side of this for the moment but promise to wander from there.
First off, there is the notion that the laws of the universe came into existence by the conscious power and action of God who created them just for us. Well, that's a very arrogant proposition I'd say. Almighty God created the laws of the universe so that life would emerge on a tiny rock, one of millions of billions, in some backwater fringe of the universe on a planet doomed to be swallowed up by its star when it expires?
It is scientific fact that this planet is doomed. There isn't an astronomer out there who would disagree that the sun, at the end of its life, is going to swell up and eradicate life from our planet. This hardly seems like the thoughtful planning of an all powerful God.
Additionally, what about the millions of planets for whom the laws of physics as they presently stand negate the possibility of life? What evidence is there to suggest that if any of the laws of physics were slightly different that it wouldn't then open the gate for life to exist elsewhere? The fact that we're here means we could be no place else. That is to say that ANY observer, on any planet and under any set of natural laws, would contemplate the same thing. Simply by us being here does not make the parameters of our universe exclusive to existence. Maybe matter would behave differently under different laws, and maybe the universe would look different, and maybe life would be a very different kind of life, adapted to live under the conditions in which it was created. Maybe it wouldn't be the most optimal thing, but neither is the world in which we live.
Let us assume, for a moment, that God does exist. He created the universe just for us. My question is, why did he give up? He put us on a doomed rock with temperamental weather. Not only that, but during his creation process he got pretty lazy as well. There are a multitude of points that have been made about the shortcomings in the apparent design of the world and its organisms. Why isn't the circulatory system in our legs better adept at handling the extra blood pressure due to walking upright? etc..., things of that nature.
Why did God give up? Is God making quiche in the other room and he's dashing back to check the oven? Does he keep leaving the referee post to argue with his baby's mama on his cell from the celestial sidelines? What's so important that he keeps ducking away from the world?
God started the universe and wanders away. "Oh heavens... I let life spring up in the boonies. It's not in the middle of things all special like I'd wanted. This star is going to swallow them all up in a bit. Oh well. It'll be amusing while it lasts."
Life emerges when God designs creatures starting with the irreducibly complex and working up to the reducibly complex. "Oops, wasn't paying attention and let a meteor destroy most of complex life on the planet. Oh crap, well lets start building them up again. Let's make them less toothy this time."
Humans come into existence and are ignored for 90%+ of their existence by the divine. "Damn, did they spring up ALREADY? Alright, well I'm feeling a little down in the dumps. Cheer me up by burning animals and killing other people I haven't talked to yet and praise me as much as you can."
Modern day; God ignores the world yet again. Hatred and barbarism no longer require us to get our own hands dirty, we can do it with the push of a button. We can kill someone without ever seeing their face or hearing their cries. Some of God's followers are more than willing to take their own lives to create suffering for those who do not share the same views of God. God does nothing to stop any of these things. There is no divine intervention. I submit it's because there is no divine; at least not one that can intervene.
God gave up astronomically speaking by lazily putting us noplace special in the universe. Gave up on us biologically by not bothering to suit us effectively for the world we live in; we've had to make most of those advances on our own. He gave up on us personally by allowing evil and hatred to run rampant in our world. Why did God give up? If he exists, why so half-assed? Why not more consistency? Why are we able to find natural causes for every inquiry we make into the world around us that do not require a supernatural explanation? And yes, there are areas we don't have good answers for yet. That does not make some made-up mumbo jumbo an accurate or valid explanation.
I enjoy watching various debates and lectures from theists and atheists alike to hear what other people are thinking and points that they find to be either profound or persuasive. Sometimes I hear theistic arguments that aren't getting what I'd consider to be good retorts from the atheistic speakers so I have decided to ramble a bit about it.
The point being made, most often by Dinesh D'Souza and usually admired by widely respected (and disrespected) people such as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, is that the universe just happens to be such that things work. That if one of the many laws or forces in nature were just the slightest bit altered, in that case we would never have existed. Along the same lines, from the ID camp, it's known as irreducible complexity in biology. The notion that some organisms exist in such a way that if any of their parts is removed, they cease to function altogether. Bacterial flagellum is the most common. I'm going to stick with the physics/astrology side of this for the moment but promise to wander from there.
First off, there is the notion that the laws of the universe came into existence by the conscious power and action of God who created them just for us. Well, that's a very arrogant proposition I'd say. Almighty God created the laws of the universe so that life would emerge on a tiny rock, one of millions of billions, in some backwater fringe of the universe on a planet doomed to be swallowed up by its star when it expires?
It is scientific fact that this planet is doomed. There isn't an astronomer out there who would disagree that the sun, at the end of its life, is going to swell up and eradicate life from our planet. This hardly seems like the thoughtful planning of an all powerful God.
Additionally, what about the millions of planets for whom the laws of physics as they presently stand negate the possibility of life? What evidence is there to suggest that if any of the laws of physics were slightly different that it wouldn't then open the gate for life to exist elsewhere? The fact that we're here means we could be no place else. That is to say that ANY observer, on any planet and under any set of natural laws, would contemplate the same thing. Simply by us being here does not make the parameters of our universe exclusive to existence. Maybe matter would behave differently under different laws, and maybe the universe would look different, and maybe life would be a very different kind of life, adapted to live under the conditions in which it was created. Maybe it wouldn't be the most optimal thing, but neither is the world in which we live.
Let us assume, for a moment, that God does exist. He created the universe just for us. My question is, why did he give up? He put us on a doomed rock with temperamental weather. Not only that, but during his creation process he got pretty lazy as well. There are a multitude of points that have been made about the shortcomings in the apparent design of the world and its organisms. Why isn't the circulatory system in our legs better adept at handling the extra blood pressure due to walking upright? etc..., things of that nature.
Why did God give up? Is God making quiche in the other room and he's dashing back to check the oven? Does he keep leaving the referee post to argue with his baby's mama on his cell from the celestial sidelines? What's so important that he keeps ducking away from the world?
God started the universe and wanders away. "Oh heavens... I let life spring up in the boonies. It's not in the middle of things all special like I'd wanted. This star is going to swallow them all up in a bit. Oh well. It'll be amusing while it lasts."
Life emerges when God designs creatures starting with the irreducibly complex and working up to the reducibly complex. "Oops, wasn't paying attention and let a meteor destroy most of complex life on the planet. Oh crap, well lets start building them up again. Let's make them less toothy this time."
Humans come into existence and are ignored for 90%+ of their existence by the divine. "Damn, did they spring up ALREADY? Alright, well I'm feeling a little down in the dumps. Cheer me up by burning animals and killing other people I haven't talked to yet and praise me as much as you can."
Modern day; God ignores the world yet again. Hatred and barbarism no longer require us to get our own hands dirty, we can do it with the push of a button. We can kill someone without ever seeing their face or hearing their cries. Some of God's followers are more than willing to take their own lives to create suffering for those who do not share the same views of God. God does nothing to stop any of these things. There is no divine intervention. I submit it's because there is no divine; at least not one that can intervene.
God gave up astronomically speaking by lazily putting us noplace special in the universe. Gave up on us biologically by not bothering to suit us effectively for the world we live in; we've had to make most of those advances on our own. He gave up on us personally by allowing evil and hatred to run rampant in our world. Why did God give up? If he exists, why so half-assed? Why not more consistency? Why are we able to find natural causes for every inquiry we make into the world around us that do not require a supernatural explanation? And yes, there are areas we don't have good answers for yet. That does not make some made-up mumbo jumbo an accurate or valid explanation.
