Thread: faulty logic in an argument for a creator

I do see what you're saying, but with the rate computers are advancing, I wouldn't put too much stock into that statement.

In any case, Mr. Strobel, whos name seems to be missing a title such as "professor", has it backwards. The planet is not perfectly fine tuned for life. Life has adapted to the planet. Even then, species go extinct all the time. Further, the planet was not always as it is now anyway. It has changed greatly over its life span. It continues to change and will eventually die, along with our sun. Life is short and often violent and painful. I guess our planet is perfectly fine tuned for an inherently flawed existence.

yes, artificial intelligence did cross my mind...

anyway. Strobel is just the interviewer. that was actually said by Robin Collins, PHD. he "...earn[ed] degrees in physics and mathematics at Washington State University (with a grade point average a scant 0.07 points shy of perfection) and then entered a doctoral program in physics at the University of Texas in Austin." oh, and it also says that philosophy is his third major.

I love how hard the titles and achievements are played up in this book, as if in desperation. it makes me want to both laugh in pity and bash my head against a wall in frustration at the same time.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Life is short and often violent and painful. I guess our planet is perfectly fine tuned for an inherently flawed existence.

Collins again: "Were the defendant's fingerprints on the gun because of a chance formation of chemicals or because he touched the weapon? Jurors don't hesitate to confidently conclude that he touched the gun if the odds against chance are so astronomical."
____

it looks like God is the killer.

verdict: guilty.

(...or was He framed?)

Yeah the universe requires no conscious thought in order to be perfectly designed for sustaining life, but it is obvious that the universe was created (not quite a good way to put it since in all probability there was no source of creation when it comes to all of existence) to sustain life. Some people make the argument that comets could hit us and the sun could blow up and our magnetic field could destabilize meaning it's all random. I don't know, there's just so much evidence it exits to sustain life. If hydrogen burned into helium at just the tiniest rate faster or slower then it couldn't support the solar system. If water had slightly different properties it couldn't sustain life, either. The list is infinite of just tiny, subtle changes in our physics that would have made life impossible.

But yeah, ot's still a pretty big leap to concluce from that a conscious mind had to create it. It's just someone trying to defensively argue God created the universe because people have made assertions against his faith.

I think the REAL fault in the logic is that this assumes there's one such biosphere. A more realistic example would be:

There are billions upon billions of said biospheres, with randomly-adjusted dials... well, then there's a pretty good chance that one of them is setup right for SOME kind of life to thrive.