Science notes that, yes in the exact conditions it is now, our universe quite possibly is incredibly unlikely. I do believe, however, that I addressed this point previously. Some scientists believe that the conditions which determine whether life is possible, like, yes, the weights of the subatomic particles, and thus the strength of gravity, and the strength of the other three forces (although I’m not sure whether the weak force should be measured in strength…), are interconnected. In other words, it may not be so improbable. Secondly, Intelligent Design proponents use a simple pattern in order to “prove†the existence of intelligence: first, they demonstrate, using philosophy or genuine science that some phenomena in nature are very unlikely, and cannot be easily explained by science. Their next step is the big one: they simply conclude that the only way for it to happen is for a supernatural event, like the intervention of a deity. This is faulty because our universe is not ruled by chance, but by the laws of the universe. What are the chances for a diamond to form? Very low indeed. For the first atom to be placed in the first place, if one of a million, the chance is one in a million. For the second atom, it is 1/999999. For the third, it is 1/999998, etc. And by the way, I didn’t even account for the fact that none of the atoms could be antimatter, or that all of the atoms have to be Carbon, rather than any other element. For another example, what are the chances that g=/-9.8 in a vacuum on earth? Considering that g could equal anything, the chance that g will be the same in all cases is infinity x #of trials. Hmm, yet we landed a man on the moon?
Another problem with your statement is that you make the assumption that life on Earth is the only life possible. This is an argument from lack of imagination (sorry, I cannot put it any way that sounds nicer).
Yet another problem is laid out in what is called the ‘anthropic principle’. Simply put, if the universe were such that intelligent life were impossible, nothing would be there to come to the conclusion that, “Hey, our universe is just rightâ€. I know I stated this before, but there are three possibilities for this:
a) The universe oscillates back and forth between big bangs and big crunches, with different initial conditions every time.
b) There is a megaverse, or multiverse, which encompasses all universes. Sort of like tabs in an internet browser; each one has something different. This is the same as ‘a’ except that it utilizes another spatial dimension instead of the time dimension.
c) Universes themselves are naturally selected. This is a newer theory, and I’m not sure I buy it. but then again, I haven’t read much into it. Basically, it has to do with black holes being created and the premise that similar conditions which black holes require are also required by life. Again, I would never base an argument off of this one; however I think it deserves mentioning.
Any of the above possibilities would allow variation for the universe, and thus be natural selected by the perception of an intelligent living being.
Omega, there is a huge difference between oxygen and a deity. First of all, not only can we not see the deity, we cannot touch, smell, hear (usually, unless you count the people to claim to hear God all the time…First, I would recommend trying to record the incident. If it happens often and you cannot manage to record it, please see a psychologist) or in any other basic way. Additionally, oxygen doesn’t answer prayers or any other task expected of Yahweh, let alone create universes or do miracles. No, in that sense, oxygen is pretty basic. We know many things about it, for example chemical properties. I think it might even be possible to see oxygen under UV light, and even if we cannot see oxygen we have oxygen detectors. Hey, light a fire, and if you can, we know there is oxygen there, and if you cannot, it’s possible oxygen is not there. You will suffocate within ten minutes without oxygen. Oxygen is in water, and it is possible to freeze the stuff too. But you are right, we cannot see oxygen as a gas.
We cannot attribute the phenomena in nature to God, because we have naturalistic explanations for them. Think of what we knew during the dark ages (when religion was dominant) about the universe, medicine, engineering, biology, and other studies. I think it’s safe to say that, given today’s medicine, the spread of the plague in Europe would never have happened. There would have been antibiotics and doctors who knew something about medicine, besides blood-letting to “let out evil spiritsâ€. We know more now, and I think it is safe to say slightly more than we would have known by faith. Indeed, Edward Jenner would never have developed a Smallpox vaccine without the scientific method.
The reason we do not believe what we cannot see is that it becomes difficult, then, to determine what is real and what is made up. Should we assign spirits to the clouds and the sun, and then complain when someone is skeptical of our belief system? Science uses evidence to determine the way the universe behaves, from the miniscule quark and lepton, to the bacterium, to the nervous system, to plants, fire, computers, clouds, continents, solar systems, and time itself works (sorry for listing off a bunch of stuff, but it is all stuff which is either the product of science or is highly understood by it).
I would expect that every group of people (excluding some obvious ones. You would expect fewer Amish fatalities in car accidents and electrocutions) is has around the same outcome when subjected to the same circumstance. In other words, Atheists aren’t hit by lightning any more than Baptists or Muslims. When people claim that homosexuality was the cause of the disaster in New Orleans, not to get into that debate, I have to ask whether it has anything to do with New Orleans being in a location
you would expect to be hit by more hurricanes. Sure, if it hit Salt Lake City, I might have to look into that. But still, there is no direct correlation between “immorality†and disaster.
Rather than attributing that city’s apparent immunity to their prayer, might it also be possible that they sincerely had a medical advantage? Why is it that as the credibility of an account proclaimed to be a “miracle†decreases with the (for lack of a better word) amazingness of that miracle actually happening? Basically, it’s an inverse relationship between credibility size. Additionally, why can miraculous behavior not be reproduced? Finally, how much prayer is required to heal my friend’s amputated leg or bring my grandma back from the dead? Prayer can supposedly do just about anything, so…
Finally, I would like to point out that, no, not all religions have the same values. This becomes quite apparent if you look at the actions taken by the various religions of the world. There were no ‘crusades of the Buddhists’ or anything like that, or a ‘Confucianism Inquisition’. I usually don’t like to talk about all of the bad things which can be justified under religion, so might we focus on the faith trial of Abraham, a keystone to three major world religions? So, as a test of faith, omnibonevolent Yahweh told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his long awaited son born when his mom was about 90, to please Yahweh. Please note above for what I have to say about people which hear things. So Abraham took his son, tied him up, and climbed up a mountain. What a good son Isaac was, he didn’t squirm. Abraham put him on the alter and was about to stab his son to death and barbeque him for the pleasure of a voice in his head (oh yea, it was
before the ten commandments so he must not have known any better than to kill) when a merciful angel decided to inform faithful old (yes he was) Abe that is was all a test. Never mind the serious mental harm, which we simple civilized folk call child abuse, it showed the virtues of faith!
If you find this story as appalling as I do (oh and if not, I can find worse ones), from a book that is supposed to be teaching
us[/u] morals, you must have an outside set of morals, separate from those of the Bible, or else you would have to agree that this is how everyone should behave.
It’s a famous quote of unknown origin (to me), but: “Those who say that we need more religion really mean we need more policeâ€. I decided to add this because it should strike a tone with Libertarians like Trappin and I. Ponder and disagree all you want, but I like it.
And for the FINAL finally 
, if you, Omega say that all religions are the same in their morals, then to society, does it matter whether you’re Christian, or are you a Christian simply from indoctrination? It’s something to ponder…
