If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Hello all,

Just to summarize this discussion.

The two best theories that attempt to account for the existence of the universe and the existence of humans is the following.

1. We are the result of plan, intention engineering and design by a Creator who intentionally caused the universe and life to exist.
2. We are the result of mechanistic forces that somehow came into existence and arbitrarily caused the universe and subsequently life to exist minus plan or intent to do so.

This needs a little adjustment to make both hypotheses equally rife with appeal to personal incredulity and ridicule:

1. We are the result of plan, intention, engineering, and design by a Creator who happens to exist and happens to be able to create universes and happens to be able to act in the universe to design life which it happens to want to do and happens to want exactly the universe in which we find ourselves with exactly the forms of life by which we find ourselves surrounded, and we ourselves happen to be exactly what this Creator wanted.

---

Most atheists in my experience don't defend or support theory 2.

Perhaps that's because hypothesis 2 is not the main reason they don't believe hypothesis 1.

---

Instead they bash, marginalize and demonize theory 1 in an attempt to make it look foolish and then claim we don't know how the universe came into existence.

If you think we DO know how the universe came into existence, please enlighten us instead of whinging that we're not nice for pointing out the  obvious glaring weakness in hypothesis 1, which is that there's no good reason to believe it is true. 

---

The reason most atheists don't support or defend 2 is because theory 2 is inexplicable.

Some people never learn they're not mind readers. Hypothesis 1 is at least as inexplicable. It introduces an explanation that has never been demonstrated to be the actual explanation for anything. At least hypothesis 2 is based on the nature of the actual explanation for the origin of the universe not turning out to be of a completely different kind than the explanations for everything else.

---

They would have to defend the notion that mechanistic forces always existed and eventually turned into matter, caused time and the universe to exist. This would endow mechanistic forces with the divine attribute of always existing and working outside of time.

Which actually seem to be attributes of quantum foam. If you consider those divine attributes, I suppose you ought to worship quantum foam. Quantum foam also seems to have the attribute of endless creativity. It's not a sure thing, but the math works and it's consistent with what we know of the universe, which is more than you can honestly say about your supposed Creator.

---

The alternative is an act of magic in which mechanistic forces came into existence uncaused out of nothing.

Says the guy who believes the origin really is supernatural. Tu quoque much?

---

Although they would claim this is 'natural' which just means it doesn't involve a Creator which is really all supernatural means.

Yes, yes, we are all aware you have made up a definition of supernatural convenient to your argument. And we don't buy it. Your inability to argue your point without changing the usual meanings of words is quite telling.

Even if we somehow swallow this explanation, it still leaves us with mindless unguided forces that for unknown reasons have laws of physics that allowed the simplest matter to turn into stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. For planets to form a process of alchemy occurs inside stars that fuse hydrogen and helium into exotic matter that subsequently turns into second generation stars that have rocky planets. Then a myriad of exacting conditions occurs (minus any plan or intent) that eventually turn inert matter into life.

Yes, it is completely obvious that all you really have to argue against hypothesis 2 with is your own personal incredulity and appeal to ridicule. You needn't belabor it.

---

In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance.

So does hypothesis 1. If the Creator has free will and the power to create anything, the things it could have created are infinite. The odds that we and the universe we are in would be exactly what it wanted to create are one in infinity, effectively zero, if one is consistent about working backwards they way you do for a natural explanation of the universe. 

---

If something isn't by plan or design what do you have left? Apart from mind nothing happens by design it all occurs by chance.

Chance or inevitability, to name one other possible alternative off the top of my head. And neither of those amounts to an argument that they aren't actually the case, just a repetition that you personally find it hard to believe, so it must not be true.

---

I wrote in the OP the best arguments in favor of atheism (other than relentlessly bashing theism).

Haven't we already thanked you enough for continually presuming to know us well enough to put words in our mouths?

-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe. 

True but there are lots of things which only have circumstantial evidence in their favor, theism is a belief not  a fact.

No kidding.

-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.

True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?

Why wouldn't there be?

-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

True. But much of it also appears to be designed and engineered to produce specific results.

Superfically appears. In every case where we've been able to get at the root reasons for something appearing to be designed and engineered to produce specific results we've actually found mechanisms that don't involve conscious design or engineering, except for those things made by conscious biological living organisms with brains and physical manipulatory members.

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

To the best of our knowledge evolution would only occur after life begins and only under a myriad of conditions already mentioned.

Biological evolution can only occur after life begins, chemical/molecular evolution can (and probably did) precede it.  

The problem with the bashing theism technique of justifying atheism is it only inspires the base, those who are already atheists or those who hate all religion.

The virtue of it is that the only reason a rational person should need to not believe something is lack of a good reason to think it is actually true. 

That is why atheism hasn't grown significantly in numbers in many years.

You've been corrected on this before. Atheism is on the rise in the developed world, the only places where religion is gaining is where the bulk of people are ignorant, poor, and desperate. 

A new approach would be to admit theism and atheism are beliefs, opinions about how our existence came about.

There are only so many ways we can say that atheism and theism are differing opinions on the same topic with you seeming completely unable to grasp that that is the majority view here before concluding that you are somehow deficient in your ability to comprehend words coming from people with whom you disagree. 

Since no one knows for sure and no evidence rules out either theory there is no grounds to mock and ridicule one belief over the other.

If someone claimed to know which of the numerous hypothesis 2 scenarios is actually the case, I would point out that they cannot know that. If someone claimed to know for sure that hypothesis 1 is not the case, I would point out that they cannot actually know that. It's with what they use to back up their positions that determines whether mockery or ridicule is in order.

---

Because it was intentionally designed by a Creator.

 Since you don't actually know that, it is hardly a counter-example to our claim that the cause of the origin of the universe is unknown. I dare you to come up with something even weaker than this, because I don't think you can.

[Mister Agenda]

Indeed... Although, to be fair, I attribute a far lower likelihood to the possibility that some conscious entity willed the Universe into being, than to the possibility that it all happened through some unconscious process we are as yet unaware of.... or are just starting to unveil.

We experience unconscious processes all around us, every day.... we see galaxies and can trace their paths by assuming gravity and little else... The consciousness that wills everything into being would require that we first find it...

Its much more than just the existence of gravity. It is the fine balance between the strength of gravity and other forces. If the relative strength of gravity was only a little more or less the universe as we know it would be much different.

An except from Just Six Numbers.

https://sciencebits.wordpress.com/2008/0...-stronger/

Gravitation is feebler than the forces governing the microworld by the number N, about 10exp36. What would happen if it weren’t quite so weak? Imagine, for instance, a universe where gravity was ‘only’ 10EXP30 rather than 10EXP36 feebler than electric forces. Atoms and molecules would behave just as in our actual universe, but objects would not need to be so large before gravity became competitive with the other forces. The number of atoms needed to make a star (a gravitationally bound fusion reactor) would be a billion times less in this imagined universe. Planet masses would also be scaled down by a billion. Irrespective of whether these planets could retain steady orbits, the strength of gravity would stunt the evolutionary potential on them. In an imaginary strong-gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger. Gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves.

Galaxies would form much more quickly in such a universe, and would be miniaturized. Instead of the stars being widely dispersed, they would be so densely packed that close encounters would be frequent. This would in itself preclude stable planetary systems, because the orbits would be disturbed by passing stars — something that (fortunately for our Earth) is unlikely to happen in our own Solar System.

But what would preclude a complex ecosystem even more would be the limited time available for development. Heat would leak more quickly from these ‘mini-stars’: in this hypothetical strong-gravity world, stellar lifetimes would be a million times shorter. Instead of living for ten billion years, a typical star would live for about 10,000 years. A mini-Sun would burn faster, and would have exhausted its energy before even the first steps in organic evolution had got under way. Conditions for complex evolution would undoubtedly be less favourable if (leaving everything else unchanged) gravity were stronger. There wouldn’t be such a huge gulf as there is in our actual universe between the immense timespans of astronomical processes and the basic microphysical timescales for physical or chemical reactions. The converse, however, is that an even weaker gravity could allow even more elaborate and longer-lived structures to develop.

The difference between the two numbers is nearly infinitesimal yet the effect is disastrous and this is just one of 6 'constants' that have to be in a mind numbing narrow range for something like a life supporting universe to exist. The only 'naturalistic' explanation Rees can conjure is that this is one of an infinitude of universes (or universi) with variable parameters in which one was bound to have favorable characteristics to allow life and that's the one we find ourselves in. However that theory is pure naturalism in the gaps of our understanding. We don't know there are other universes and we don't know if they have variable parameters. It also has some bizarre implications. For example there would be a universe in which someone just like me and someone just like you exists only in that universe I may be an atheist and you may be a theist.

This is why its plain silly for atheists to claim there isn't a shred of evidence, not one fact anywhere that supports belief in theism. If someone makes such a claim in a debate before impartial people there going to get eaten alive.

One, there's no evidence any of those numbers could have been different. It's a thought exercise, sheer speculation. Since we don't know why they have the values they have in the first place, we have no way of knowing what the odds were. And why should an omnipotent being care about those six numbers? An omnipotent being doesn't require a specific set of physical constants in order for us to live in whatever universe it creates, if that's what it wants. If this is the only kind of universe in which we can live naturally, we are in the only kind of universe in which supernatural intervention is NOT required to explain our presence.

---

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism.

A thought experiment is not a fact.

---

The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory over we're the result of mindless mechanistic forces theory.

This is a mere assertion, when it's  the very part that it's vital for you to support if you expect to be taken seriously, that your fact actually points to the particular conclusion that you favor. 

---

I know the 'no evidence' claim of atheists is a hallowed and sacred doctrine. That doesn't make it true.

You are right, that does not make it true. What makes the claim that it is highly unlikely that anyone has such evidence is that so far, no one has presented any such evidence. One person coming up with actual evidence of theism would quickly become world famous. You could end that 'mantra' forever by actually ponying up some evidence that theistic creation is more likely than a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.  

---

What would you point to as evidence we are the result of natural forces that didn't intend sentient humans to exist?

The actual and demonstrable existence of such forces comes to mind.

You might argue the laws of physics account for the existence of the universe, stars and planets and ultimately humans. Fine, that can be used as evidence that favors your conclusion. I can use the same fact and argue its evidence that favors my conclusion.

If the same fact can be used to support multiple conclusions, it is not evidence. Evidence points to a particular conclusion being correct.

The fact there are laws of nature that allow a universe to develop and support human life is evidence they were purposely created and designed to do so.

No, it isn't. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Why would mechanistic forces care if humans, planets or stars exist...they wouldn't.

That is correct: They wouldn't, and they don't, and no one has claimed otherwise.

Suppose we come into a room and we see a window is open. I claim the window was opened by someone, you claim the wind blew it open. At this point either conclusion is reasonable based on the available evidence. But suppose you also enter in the fact that tree limbs are broken outside the window, leaves and debris is all over the yard. Now your building a persuasive (albeit) circumstantial case that supports your contention. On the other hand if we don't see those things but observe fingerprints on the window then I would be making a persuasive case. However it would be nothing more than a debating tactic to argue there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window.

If there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window, there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window. It's not a tactic, it's an observation. Without the fingerprints, it could as easily been the wind. Neither of us are justified in claiming the evidence is on our side in the question you posit. At least in this scenario, we know that personal agents who could have opened the window actually exist.

ou can say the evidence in favor of theism doesn't persuade you but since you're an atheist we already know that.

And that is the primary reason most of us are atheists, not because of a superior natural explanation.

Evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because it doesn't persuade you.

Non-evidence doesn't become evidence just because you can assert it supports your position.

Again its a foregone conclusion anyone who calls themselves and atheist is going to say that.

I wish it weren't a foregone conclusion that you were going to say something like that.

But that's exactly what one would look for if they suspect something was done intentionally.

Yes. Unfortunately for the theist view, what we find on closer examination is that superficial appearances of intentionality and design in nature are just that: superficial.

Its exactly what SETI is searching for in the universe to determine if intelligent beings are sending us a signal. They're looking for design structure in the broadcast as opposed to random signals and static.

How are they supposed to do that if you are correct in your claim that the whole universe shows design structure? The activities of intelligence are fundamentally different from the activities of undirected nature. That's how we can tell a laptop on a beach is artificial while the grains of sand are not...but you would have us believe the grains of sand are ALSO artificial.

---

The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory

Instant murder of any possibility of an honest discussion.

Yah.

If the theistic theory is true, the universe and sentient life will exist.
The universe and sentient life exist.
Therefore the theistic theory is true.

So, in addition to being mere assertion, it affirms the consequent. This would also affirm the consequent:

If the naturaistic hypotheis is true, the universe and sentient life will exist.
The universe and sentient life exist.
Therefore the naturalistic hypothesis is true.

They're both just as valid as:

If I am David Duchovny, I can speak English.
I can speak English.
Therefore I am David Duchovny.

Fortunately I don't see anyone here foolish enough to argue the second syllogism.

[Drew_2013]

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism.

If you regard "the universe and people exist" as a "fact in favor of theism" then I can understand why you feel the way you do.  However, neither of those is a fact in favor of anything.  They simply demonstrate that the universe and people exist, not how either got here.  Claiming its the result of a creator because it looks created is both circular and not compelling at all, since few things in the universe "appear created" except through the credulous eyes of the theist.  I don't use the fact of existence as evidence of the lack of a god.  The fact that we lack any evidence of god is sufficient.  If you have something more than emotional or circular beliefs, you are welcome to present them.  The forum does not lack for attempts to prove any of at least a few different gods or versions of god.  The inability to produce one is not due to a lack of effort, at least.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuning" arguments aren't poor because I want them to be poor.  They're poor because they rely either on emotion or on flawed reasoning to work.  The fine-tuning argument is particularly weak, as it assumes a great many things that we either do not or cannot know, and it also assumes that god is somehow restricted in his capabilities, which seems odd if we are to assume that he created reality itself.  I find that, like most theistic arguments, those are used because they're the best of a poor set of options.  Since god has inexplicably decided to disappear and leave humanity with, at best, an ambiguous set of instructions and a universe that is remarkably self-sufficient, it's pretty confounding to try and determine who he is and where he went.  Until he decides to show up again, I am content to live as if he was never there in the first place.

If you regard "the universe and people exist" as a "fact in favor of theism" then I can understand why you feel the way you do.

Of course I do. Its the reason we're having this discussion. Lets put it another way. In order for theism to be possibly true (the belief the universe and sentient life were intentionally caused by a Creator) certain conditions must be true or there would be no reason to suggest a Creator is involved. In contrast, there isn't one fact that needs to be true for atheism to be true (the belief (or lack of belief) no Creator exists or was involved in the existence of the universe or sentient humans). In fact there are conditions that if true would significantly favor atheism. For example suppose no universe or humans existed. Not only would atheism be a slam dunk position, there would be nothing existing to attribute to a creator. The claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true if that were so . Suppose a universe did exist, but it was utterly chaotic with no laws of physics no rhyme or reason and obviously no life (exactly what one would expect to be the result of mindless mechanistic forces that some how came into existence). Again there would be no reason to raise the question of theism (or anyone to raise such an idea but this is a thought experiment). Again in order for the possibility of theism to be raised certain conditions and facts must be true.

1. A universe has to exist
2. The universe must be such that life can occur and be around long enough for sentience to occur
3. Sentient life must exist
4. There must be stable laws of physics that allow for stars, galaxies, and planets to exist.

Question: Why would mindless mechanistic forces create the conditions necessary for the claim of theism to have any merit?

You say these facts aren't compelling. Anyone who is an atheist and either disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God is going to say that. Is any atheist here or anywhere going to say the aforementioned facts are compelling but I don't give it any credence anyway? Actually there was an atheist who did give these arguments a lot of credence but as a result he became a philosophical theist. I'm referring to Antony Flew.

[Drew_2013]

Wow!

Now that was a smack down, nice work

Indeed! The idea that "things wouldn't work if stuff was different" does indeed sound like a restriction on an omnipotent God. I hadn't thought of that before. Surely Mr omnimax can make constants to be whatever he wants and still make things work. If not, he's at the mercy of mathematics or something?

And lets face it, how well suited is this universe to human life? It's not. Almost all of it is lethal to us, including much of our own planet.

I'm sick of these arguments which put forward God having to work around arbitrary restrictions (like a human would) when he's simultaneously being heralded as omnipotent. It's both childish and intellectually dishonest. Trying to mix fairy tales with reality does not work.

I always find it amusing when atheists resort to a theological argument against the existence of God or a Creator. This argument goes like this:

If a omnipotent God caused the universe to exist why didn't God create a universe in which humans couldn't possibly exist except by some on going supernatural process? My rebuttal is who knows? I could ask why do architects build structures that are extremely inefficient and should that lead me to believe they were caused by natural forces without plan or intent? If you're going to live by such facts you're doing to die by them also. What natural process caused matter to exist in the first place? Why would lifeless mindless forces without plan, intent or an engineering degree cause a universe with exacting laws of physics that allow something utterly unlike itself to exist i.e. life and mind? The irony is many atheists reject the notion we are the result of the miraculous or supernatural yet there counter claim that the universe, life and mind is the result of mechanistic forces that didn't plan or intend such to occur is at least as miraculous as the explanation they reject. Which would be more miraculous in your mind, that a laptop some how came into existence minus any plan or intent by naturalistic forces or that such came into existence intentionally by beings that designed it?

[Tonus]

You say these facts aren't compelling.

I did not say that those facts are not compelling.  I said that claiming that it looks like the work of a creator based on emotional or circular reasoning is not compelling.  Restating the fact that the universe exists and life exists within it does not make the claims any more compelling.  Telling me that I see things differently because of an inherent bias is actually working backwards: I was a theist, and thus had to work past that bias in order to realize that there isn't one.  The notion that some powerful being created all of reality is not falsifiable, since you can appeal to his power and qualities (and make or edit these as needed to cover any explanation).  The notion that it all came to be through some unguided process is not, but as yet there has been no smoking gun that shows us that it could not have happened, but there seems to be lots of evidence pointing at how it might have happened.

And of course, this can all be made moot the moment god shows up and explains that yes, he created it all.  Seeing as men have been waiting for that moment for some 2,000+ years now, I am not going to hold my breath.

[Surgenator]

1. A universe has to exist
2. The universe must be such that life can occur and be around long enough for sentience to occur
3. Sentient life must exist
4. There must be stable laws of physics that allow for stars, galaxies, and planets to exist.

Question: Why would mindless mechanistic forces create the conditions necessary for the claim of theism to have any merit?

You say these facts aren't compelling. Anyone who is an atheist and either disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God is going to say that. Is any atheist here or anywhere going to say the aforementioned facts are compelling but I don't give it any credence anyway? Actually there was an atheist who did give these arguments a lot of credence but as a result he became a philosophical theist. I'm referring to Antony Flew.

Corrections:
Observation (1) Our universe exist.
Observation (2) Sentient life exist.
Observation (3) The rules of our universe are consistent.
Observation (4) Our universe is ooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllldddddddddddddd.
Observation (5) Our earth is oooooolllllllllddddddd too. Not as old as the universe.
Observation (6) Comples behaviour arises from simple interactions.

Bad conclusion: God had to create all of this because I cannot see how "mindless mechanistic forces create the conditions necessary" create sentient life.

[Drew_2013]

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism. The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory over we're the result of mindless mechanistic forces theory. I know the 'no evidence' claim of atheists is a hallowed and sacred doctrine. That doesn't make it true. What would you point to as evidence we are the result of natural forces that didn't intend sentient humans to exist? You might argue the laws of physics account for the existence of the universe, stars and planets and ultimately humans. Fine, that can be used as evidence that favors your conclusion. I can use the same fact and argue its evidence that favors my conclusion. The fact there are laws of nature that allow a universe to develop and support human life is evidence they were purposely created and designed to do so. Why would mechanistic forces care if humans, planets or stars exist...they wouldn't.


Suppose we come into a room and we see a window is open. I claim the window was opened by someone, you claim the wind blew it open. At this point either conclusion is reasonable based on the available evidence. But suppose you also enter in the fact that tree limbs are broken outside the window, leaves and debris is all over the yard. Now your building a persuasive (albeit) circumstantial case that supports your contention. On the other hand if we don't see those things but observe fingerprints on the window then I would be making a persuasive case. However it would be nothing more than a debating tactic to argue there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window. You can say the evidence in favor of theism doesn't persuade you but since you're an atheist we already know that. Evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because it doesn't persuade you.

The fact that life exists is not evidence for a god of any kind. In the physical world, it is common to find pockets of order within a sea of disorder. Life is something that requires a very specific and fortunate set of circumstances to occur, but in a system the size and age of the Universe, it isn't hard to see how a complicated system can occur due to the results of "random" processes. We only think we are special in some way because we have the ability to think. 

Life existing doesn't mean the purpose of the universe was to create life. If something designed the universe this way, they did an awful job, since the likelihood of life occurring at a given place is minuscule. 

Your window analogy is poor at best. Apply Occam's razor; the simplest solution is most likely the correct one. For the window, it is much more likely that someone opened it than a freak gust of wind with sufficient energy came along and blew it open. If the latter was the case, you'd probably notice stuff like fallen over buildings, or mislaid farm animals. In the case of life, the simpler solution is that it is the result of an entirely possible (though unlikely) set of events, rather than it being the work of a extra-dimensional super-powerful being that defies all logic and science. 

I have my own version of Occam's razor...if its not a fact it doesn't exist. We have no idea if life is teeming in the universe or we are the only living creatures so we can't consider that. Our existence is a fact. Whether the only life we know to exist is the result of a random process is the question at hand. Even if we assume that life began as the result of some unknown (but naturalistic process) a myriad of universal conditions must obtain for that to occur. Given the conditions in the universe that allow for stars and subsequently planets to exist then we can say given enough stars and planets other earth like planets almost certainly exist. So whatever the conditions were that caused life to happen on earth could potentially occur on other earth like planets just by sheer happenstance. However the universal conditions that allow for a earth like planet to exist are far more problematic. For that to occur by a random process we have to inject a naturalism in the gaps argument that just like earth is one of a astronomical amount of planets with varying conditions this is one of a shit load of universes with differing attributes. The reason I say its a naturalism in the gaps argument is because;

1. We don't know if other universes exist.
2. We don't know if they do exist that the characteristics are variable.

Lastly according to my version of Occams razor if its not a fact it doesn't exist. Its not a fact other universes exist. The only universe we can factually point to is this one. Speaking from facts...
1. We only know of one universe
2. It requires exacting conditions not only for life to occur but for stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets to occur.

So mind boggling exacting are the conditions necessary for a planet to cause and maintain life long enough for sentience to occur that many physicists think of this evidence in favor of design as evidence this is one of an infinitude of universes. Lets examine what needs to occur just for an earth like planet to exist. First up a universe has to some how come into existence. When we say natural processes exist what we're referring to is matter, the law of physics, gravity and the other forces of nature. Its believed by scientists that these natural processes came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago. I don't know of any scientist or any scientific theory that suggests that the laws of nature and matter always existed or that they caused their own existence; it would be difficult to imagine that the laws of nature that now exist caused there own existence before they came into existence.

Okay so no one knows how the existence of the laws of nature we now observe came into existence. However they came to be, atheists maintain no Creator or designer was behind it either through a lack of belief or disbelief as the case may be. Although some atheists I have run across have suggested the universe itself may have come into existence uncaused out of nothing no one I know of suggests the earth came into existence uncaused out of nothing. The way our planet came about is (along time ago in a galaxy far far away) a massive star went super nova, blew off all its gas and in a process caused by the laws of nature turned helium and hydrogen into exotic matter that could then become (some day in the fullness of time) planet material. This blown off gas along with exotic matter formed a disk the center of which became a star which became our sun. This process alone requires the laws of physics to be thus and so. Not that the laws of physics care one way or another how they turn out, or if they produce stars, galaxies of planets. For any of this to happen a phenomenon known as gravity must exist. How fortunate is it (for us) that if matter exists at all it has this quality that causes it to attract other matter. Even more fortunate for us that its a relatively weak force that allows for the existence of things like stars, galaxies and planets. Considering it wasn't designed or deliberately caused to be the strength it is I don't think there are words that can accurately describe how fortunate that was (for us). To the best of our knowledge the strength of gravity is a constant, the same everywhere. That was a lucky break...whew. So now we have a disk with rocky (and gaseous) material floating around the disk the center of which becomes our Sun. It takes millions of years for the earth to form but for life to occur (in the only known form it exists) it requires water, lots of water. But there is no water on earth, not a drop. Somehow (fortunate for us) water got here and lots of it. The theory is that water was delivered by comets that relentlessly pummeled the earth and filled it with water enough to create oceans. Wow that was a lucky break that something that would destroy all life was responsible for allowing life. Fortunate also that water in ice form floats or runaway glaciation would occur. The other thing we need for life to occur is for a sun to shine on the earth for life giving processes to start. Unfortunately, the Sun's close proximity to earth and the radiation it delivers would also destroy any life. Thank God...excuse me I mean thank the fortuitous laws of nature that dictate if a planet has a iron core spinning around fast enough it produces a magnetic field that shields the earth from the harmful rays of the sun. On the other hand, thank blind unguided laws of nature that the Sun does produce solar wind which though harmful to us protects us from cosmic rays blasting through the universe which would also destroy us. None of these are circumstances that can be accounted by the random conditions within various solar systems. These are universal characteristics that to the best of our knowledge only had once shot to be what they are. That brings us to another naturalism in the gaps argument I occasionally hear. Maybe if a universe exists for some unknown reason it has to have the characteristics that cause life to exist. That line of reasoning is a kick in the head from folks who normally claim we are the result of the unintended laws of physics that just happened to be as they are. One reason why they would have to be as they are is because they were designed to be that way...


Is it really less miraculous to think we are the result of design then to think that mindless lifeless forces minus any plan or intent to cause themselves to exist in the first place would later turn into a phenomena that produces sentient life? Minus some reasonable explanation, model or theory why should anyone reject the former for the latter?  

[The Grand Nudger]

1. A universe has to exist
-same for "atheism to be true"

2. The universe must be such that life can occur and be around long enough for sentience to occur
-same for "atheism to be true"

3. Sentient life must exist
-same for "atheism to be true"

4. There must be stable laws of physics that allow for stars, galaxies, and planets to exist.
-same for "atheism to be true"

-why would mindless mechanistic forces create the conditions necessary for the claim of atheism to have any merit?

[robvalue]

Why is God handing out arguments for his existence to his followers knowing atheists will find them unconvincing?

Seems like he's trying to make everyone look stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Those "specifications" that you think are exact are, just as one example, in the range of 3 au....

3...fucking, au man......thats nearly half a million k.   For reference there's enough elbow room for a dozen earths unraveled and layed out flat like a sheet of paper in that range in every minute (lets not even talk about the total area of the range.....) - and that range is just about to the point where it;s been disputed beyond any reason to accept it.  Just here, in our solar system, we have examples of things that don't fit with that range.  Water where it "shouldn't be" - if we only went by our exacting specifications for life.  That's generally the problem with these fine tuning claims.  They omit that the tuning aint so fine, or only -sounds- fine when you condense half a million kilometers into 3 units of measure.

Or, for flavor, the cosmo constant argument can be boiled down to "if the universe were different..the universe would be different" - yeah, no shit.  "If the universe were different, I would not be here to ask the question" - yeah....no shit.......

-And yes, understanding that there is no requirement for a creator, and that these "mindless forces" are both capable of producing us...and that they -did- produce us..that this is the position in evidence puts your ghosts and gremlins in a decidely more miraculous camp....particularly in that there are no miracles -at all- in the "mindless forces" camp........nary a single magical being to be found therein.