The designer?

The reason I believe in a theistic/designed universe is probability.
Gravity off we don't exist
Any of the forces of the universe different we might not exist
Earth too far away we freeze to close to the sun we fry.
Right balanced atmosphere for life too much of something and well we don't exist
Correct elements and combinations of the elements otherwise we don't exist
Earths spin and moon and it's effect on earth cause tides ect
Just too many factors in favor of design. It's mind boggling because anyone of these things different within the universe and we probably don't exist.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
The reason I believe in a theistic/designed universe is probability.
Gravity off we don't exist
Any of the forces of the universe different we might not exist
Earth too far away we freeze to close to the sun we fry.
Right balanced atmosphere for life too much of something and well we don't exist
Correct elements and combinations of the elements otherw ...[text shortened]... e of these things different within the universe and we probably don't exist.



Manny

Yes and not just for humans but for all life here. Evolution might have something to say if only one type of species were here and probably struggling at best but look at the millions of species and their varities that prosper perfectly except for fallen mankind ruining what we can. But that aside this earth runs perfectly and will do even better once God cleanzes the earth once and for all from wickedness.

Originally posted by menace71
The reason I believe in a theistic/designed universe is probability.
Gravity off we don't exist
Any of the forces of the universe different we might not exist
Earth too far away we freeze to close to the sun we fry.
Right balanced atmosphere for life too much of something and well we don't exist
Correct elements and combinations of the elements otherw ...[text shortened]... e of these things different within the universe and we probably don't exist.



Manny

You could argue that the sun earth moon system has been designed. The Sun is about 400 times bigger than the Moon, and is also about 400 times further away from Earth than the Moon.
The result?
The Sun and Moon look about the same size in the sky and hence when the Moon's orbit takes it in front of the Sun, we get total solar eclipses.
These wouldn't happen but for this remarkable combination of size and distance.
So, is it designed, or just coincidence?

There's some significant work going into multiverse models of the universe at the moment that include the possibility of an infinite number of universes existing, some of which would include characteristics that we find in ours.
Assuming a multiverse model to be possible, this would easily account for the 'golidlocks' nature of our universe without having to resort to fairies and dragons.

Originally posted by menace71
The reason I believe in a theistic/designed universe is probability.
Gravity off we don't exist
Any of the forces of the universe different we might not exist
Earth too far away we freeze to close to the sun we fry.
Right balanced atmosphere for life too much of something and well we don't exist
Correct elements and combinations of the elements otherw e of these things different within the universe and we probably don't exist.



Manny

“...The reason I believe in a theistic/designed universe is probability.
Gravity off we don't exist
Any of the forces of the universe different we might not exist ...”

here is ONE of the flaws in your reasoning; how do you know that any of the forces could have been different from what they are?
How do you know that the 'probability' of the forces being what they are is NOT, simply, 100% , i.e. NO coincidence? (and NO fairies, gods and dragons required)

“...Earth too far away we freeze to close to the sun we fry.
Right balanced atmosphere for life too much of something and well we don't exist ...”

here is another flaw in your reasoning; it isn't a 'coincidence' that we live on a planet that is just right for life and our existence because logic dictates that it is INEVITABLE that, if we exist (which we do), we can only do so at a place that is just right for life and our existence.
For example, we could not plausible exist on mercury; or in the centre of the Sun; or 100km below the Earth's crust; so is it a 'coincidence' that we don't live their? -no, because we cannot exist there. We can only exist at a place like the surface of the Earth.
Or, put more simply:

The probability of us existing at a place just right for life is very nearly 100% because it would be unlikely for as to exist in a place that is NOT just right for life. Therefore, it is NOT a big coincidence that the planet we are on is just right for life and that is true regardless of how rare such a suitable planet for life is

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...The reason I believe in a theistic/designed universe is probability.
Gravity off we don't exist
Any of the forces of the universe different we might not exist ...”

here is ONE of the flaws in your reasoning; how do you know that any of the forces could have been different from what they are?
How do you know that the 'probability' o ...[text shortened]... r life and that is true regardless of how rare such a suitable planet for life is[/b]

How can you reasonably and logically rule out GOD as the
Designer and Maker of it all?

Originally posted by menace71
The reason I believe in a theistic/designed universe is probability.
Gravity off we don't exist
Any of the forces of the universe different we might not exist

The error of that argument is that you assume that we are special. Oddly enough, you probably wouldn't apply the same argument in identical circumstances eg you don't make the same conclusion regarding your own birth. There are plenty of coincidences that led to your parents meeting, and having a baby and that baby being conceived on a specific day such that a specific egg and sperm lead to your specific genetic make up. Without all those coincidences you wouldn't be here. Yet you probably accept that they were coincidences.
You don't apply the probability argument to yourself because you recognize that you as an individual are not special. But you do apply it to the human race because you assume that they are special. Without that unwarranted assumption, the whole argument from probability fails.

Forbidden words for some Evolutionists - " Accident, Random, Chance, Unpredictability"

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
Forbidden words for some Evolutionists - [b]" Accident, Random, Chance, Unpredictability"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCq_56MzB58&feature=related[/b]

Good video. They enjoy being critical of the creationists views
but don't like it the other way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How can you reasonably and logically rule out GOD as the
Designer and Maker of it all?

How can you reasonably and logically rule out the spaghetti monster as the
Designer and Maker of it all?


when you answer that, then you have the answer to your question.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
How can you reasonably and logically rule out the spaghetti monster as the
Designer and Maker of it all?


when you answer that, then you have the answer to your question.

I posted the following on another thread, but it needs repeating
just for your benefit:

"Atheist try to use science in an attempt to prove God is not needed.
They see themselves as wise. But they have an incomplete knowledge
of science, just like the rest of us. So how can they say, truthfully, say
that there is no God. How can you put your faith into something you
do not believe in. Sometimes they are honest enough to say they do
not know, so they refuse to believe in something they don't know. But
isn't it easy to have faith in something you know? With God you must
believe He exist in order for you to put your faith in Him."

I have no evidence that a spaghetti monster exists to believe in or any
evidence that, even if such a monster existed, it could possible be the
designer or maker of anything. However, there is evidence that God
exists and that He is the Creator (Designer and Maker).

Originally posted by RJHinds
I posted the following on another thread, but it needs repeating
just for your benefit:

"Atheist try to use science in an attempt to prove God is not needed.
They see themselves as wise. But they have an incomplete knowledge
of science, just like the rest of us. So how can they say, truthfully, say
that there is no God. How can you put your faith i ...[text shortened]... However, there is evidence that God
exists and that He is the Creator (Designer and Maker).

There is as much evidence for your god as there is the FSM. Indeed, the religion of pastafarianism also has a holy book, I have a copy of it right here on my desk.

Originally posted by Agerg
There is as much evidence for your god as there is the FSM. Indeed, the religion of pastafarianism also has a holy book, I have a copy of it right here on my desk.

I didn't see you at church yesterday, heathen.
You missed quite the sermon on being consistent with marinara sauce
Pray his noodly appendages don't strike you down with a meatball, dear Agergs

Originally posted by amannion
I don't have any beliefs about how the universe came about.
I wait for science to enlighten me on that score - and there are many interesting threads that people are following.
Strange as it might seem to you, I can live my day to day life quite nicely without having a perfect explanation for how the world I live in came to be.

If there were a designer and creator of the universe, would Science be able to verify it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I posted the following on another thread, but it needs repeating
just for your benefit:

"Atheist try to use science in an attempt to prove God is not needed.
They see themselves as wise. But they have an incomplete knowledge
of science, just like the rest of us. So how can they say, truthfully, say
that there is no God. How can you put your faith i However, there is evidence that God
exists and that He is the Creator (Designer and Maker).

“..."Atheist try to use science in an attempt to prove God is not needed. ….”

No, they generally don't. They simply use science and not usually to disprove 'God' is “not needed” in particular. They can simply state “God is not needed (for an explanation) ” and stick with that. When an atheist uses science, just like when a typical theist uses science, he is not normally (if ever) trying to prove or disprove the “need” for 'God' or 'gods' or the spaghetti monster for the same reasons. Normally, when somebody uses science, they are not trying to demonstrate anything about 'God' and are not usually concerned with a god in particular in respect to their current use of science. For example, neither a scientist using knowledge of biochemistry to design a new designer drug nor a person collecting and studying dinosaur bones would be trying to prove or disprove the “need” for 'God' and almost certainly wouldn't even be thinking about 'God' when doing any such work.

“...They see themselves as wise. But they have an incomplete knowledge
of science, just like the rest of us....”

Obviously no atheist claims nor believes that he has “complete” knowledge
of science so what you imply above is simply false.

“.... So how can they say, truthfully, say that there is no God.....”

Occam's razor -the same reason why we believe that we can truthfully say there is no spaghetti monster.

“.... With God you must believe He exist in order for you to put your faith in Him."

with no God, you must believe He doesn't exist in order for you to have no faith in 'Him'. Faith in something that is not logically required to explain anything is always irrational.


“....I have no evidence that a spaghetti monster exists to believe in ...”

THAT is about the answer to your question -just replace “spaghetti monster” with “God” in the above and you have the reason why atheists do not think there is a god.

“...or any evidence that, even if such a monster existed, it could possible be the
designer or maker of anything. ...”

I find it curious that you implicitly make this point for me -just replace “monster” with “God” in the above and you see the point I am referring to.

“....However, there is evidence that God
exists and that He is the Creator (Designer and Maker). ...”

you have yet to show us any of this “evidence”.

Originally posted by Agerg
There is as much evidence for your god as there is the FSM. Indeed, the religion of pastafarianism also has a holy book, I have a copy of it right here on my desk.

When did this religion begin and when was its holy book written
and by whom. What archeological evidence is there for its
holy book. Is it named in some reference source like wikipedia
that gives unbiased information on it, so I can evaluate your
claims. Does any government recognize it as a religion.