Re: and who made god?

From: Neil Coward (Neil.Coward_at_iwantmorespam.com)
Date: 02/06/05 

Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:56:39 +0000 (UTC)

This argument i.e. that there must be a God because the earth/universe
whatever is so well suited to supporting human life is dealt with by
Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker"

I read the book because Douglas Adams recommended it.
Its worth a read if you are interested in the Evolutionary view of this
question..(amongst others)

"|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote in message news:36lpgdF52vmtjU1@individual.net...
> "Barb Knox" <see@sig.below> wrote in
>>
>> Please read what I actually wrote. I do not claim my existence is any
>> sort
>> of necessary fact, but it does happen to be a (contingent) fact. Given
>> that
>> fact, the universe I find myself in must be one which supports life such
>> as
>> myself. So any argument that the fact that the universe appears
>> fine-tuned
>> for our sort of life actually means something more is thoroughly bogus.
>
> That is complete and utter sh*t.
>
> When you find an object, its a straight forward scientific procedure to
> determine if its designed or
> a random conglomeration. The Universe itself is not void from scientific
> evaluation.
>
> If you came across a set of physical constants that had arbitrary values,
> and the very
> function of biological life relied on a slim window of those settings, 1
> in 1000 tolerance
> for 100 variables, then you can form theories on how BIOLOGY influenced
> PHYSICS
> even before it manifested.
>
> for example. if gravity was twice as strong, NO LIFE, if gravity was
> twice as weak NO LIFE.
> gravity could have been any value from 1 1,000,000th what it is to
> 1,000,000 times what it is,
> protein muscle systems can only handle a few G maximum to carry a 1 litre
> brain, enough
> for humanlike awareness. Life will not evolve on planets much larger than
> Earth. AND
> life will not appear on smaller planets like Mars because the G is too
> weak to hold an atmosphere.
>
> So not only are YOU ALIVE Barb, but you're standing on a narrow ledge of
> existance.
>
> We could have ALL THE RICH CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS today, but if one simple
> physical behaviour like OSMOSIS didn't work, NO LIFE! No water could
> travel up stems
> of plants, without osmosis, just bacteria level life throughout the
> universe.
>
> Barb is up to her usual deplorable arguments here, sticks her fingers in
> her ears and says
> that's proof she's a product of science. Classic strawman argument from
> blind atheists.
>
> Herc
>
>
>

Relevant Pages