Kurieuo wrote:
Well since I keep getting it wrong, again I ask what exactly you think this "cited evidence" of Ross' is?
"The actual finding is that the theoretical value of the cosmological value differs from the measured value by 10^123 times."
Kurieuo wrote:
And even if such a claim were true, so what? We expect the universe to be 'tuned' for life: we live in it. No matter what caused our universe (if it had a cause at all), it must have done it in such a way that life is possible.
This reasoning is circular for it assumes what must be proven - the cause of life.
It assumes nothing of the sort. It points out that life exists. If life exists, the universe must be capable of harbouring it. If it wasn't, life couldn't exist. Since it does, it does.
It's almost tautologous in its simplicity.
Kurieuo wrote:
I've seen many Atheists comment: "So what? Life exists so no matter how improbable it seems it happened."
However, the fact the result of life is a significant outcome compared to what otherwise may have been possible, in addition to the massive improbabilities, makes belief in design a rationally justified option (to put it mildly). I believe there is really no other way to describe the thinking implied in the Atheist's comments as anything but gullible, and I will provide my reasons why I believe this to be so.
The argument says nothing about how life came to be, merely the universe in which it finds itself. By hook or by crook, the universe
must be in such a state that life can exist; if it couldn't, life could never exist in the first place (be it by divine intervention or abiogenesis).
Kurieuo wrote:
I remember seeing a video on YouTube by an atheist. He got a packet of sugar, poured it into the pan, showed on camera how they landed and then sarcastically remarked something along the lines of: "Wow, the odds of all those grains of sugar landing in the exact way they did is astronomically improbable. We've witnessed a miracle. Well not really, but it happened nonetheless." There is no significance however to the result. If on the other hand, he poured the sugar into the pan and then the camera showed a smiley face as the result, surely it would only be an entirely gullible person who would believe the grains of sugar actually did land in that arrangement without any intelligent involvement designing it?
The Face of Mars begs to differ:
This is a purely mundane phenomenon, no?
I daresay the point of the video was to show that we shouldn't always be surprised that a highly improbable event occurred. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. These dramatically increases the odds of there being at least one habitable planet, especially given the versatility of life.
While counter-intuitive, the improbable becomes inevitable as the number of trials tends to infinity (and beyond). That's why it's no surprise that
someone wins the lottery: though it's improbable for any one person to win, there are enough trials to overcome this.
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality." - Prof. Dawkins