An argument that I've seen both theists and "intelligent design" advocates (which are often, but not always, the same) use is something like this:

"Our lives - not just human lives, but all life on planet Earth - depends on countless factors, which, yes, might have come up randomly, but if any of them was slightly different, there wouldn't be life on Earth, at least as we know it. In other words, if the Earth's orbit was a little closer to the Sun, or the planet was a bit larger (or smaller), or the rotation was slower (or faster), or any of many other factors was a bit different, none of us would exist.

Now, don't you think this is an amazing coincidence? What are the chances of so many variables having exactly the values needed for life - including human life - to appear and thrive? Doesn't this suggest a designer?"

I think I know the answer to this one , but, again, I'd like to hear your thoughts before I tell you mine. Any takers? Do you agree or disagree with the position above? And why?

My belief in god is based on personal experience rather than any kind of logical proof. I'm not convinced that such proof exists, and if it does, it's certainly not this one! I think the late great Douglas Adams dismissed this argument most effectively. I wish I could remember the exact wording, but basically he cited the existence of a puddle as proof of the existence of god. Wasn't it amazing how the depression in the pavement was exactly the right dimensions to fit the puddle? If there'd been any slight differences, then the puddle wouldn't have fitted. How could this possibly have come about except by the deliberate intention of a supreme being?

Which says enough, I think...

Douglas Adams was an atheist, that argument, which I loved, continued on to say that the puddle, using this "evidence" you have stated above, conceived of the notion that there was a "God", and when it began to dry up it prayed to the god, over and over, until eventually, just before it disappeared it relised that there was no god, and it was a very SURPRISED puddle.
Besides, water takes the form of the container it is put in, thats basic science, when considering humans, the probablility of us existing, that is, RNA or DNA spontaneously occurring and then replicating, are immense, however there is an equally immense number of planets in the universe. Thats advanced science.

This post was last modified: 12-03-2006 11:10 PM by XTimmy.

I agree. In case there's any confusion, I wasn't suggesting that Adams' puddle argument *really* supported the existence of god, quite the opposite. It was a daft argument intended to show that the "intelligent design" argument for the existence of god is also daft. Like I say, my own belief in god (or, to put it more accurately, something which may or may not be described as god) is based on personal experience, not on dodgy logic.

look at this: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...32,00.html

it is TIME magazine's "god vs. science"

If i remember correctly, one of the guys said that it's possible the "random factors" might be locked together like the circumference and diameter of a circle. cool.

This post was last modified: 12-04-2006 11:27 AM by overcaffein8d.

Thanks very much for bringing that to our attention. I haven't read the whole article yet but I've looked at the final paragraph, a quote from Richard Dawkins, and I have to say it's a first. I'm a theist and I agree with him! Perhaps there's hope for consensus yet. Do go and read the article (or buy the magazine) but here's the bit I'm referring to. Dawkins says "What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

Simon, have you read the "A challenge to believers" thread yet? I'd like to see your response to Pedro's post.

Simon: you may find this post at Ebon Musings, called A Much Greater God, interesting.

I finally got round to reading the article you mention, Pedro. Many thanks for drawing my attention to it and to the associated web site. That guy can certainly write! Needless to say, as a theist, I don't go along with everything he says, but he does a wonderful job of exposing the parochialism and limited thinking of much established religion.

I also got round to reading the whole of the Time Magazine article which overcaffein8ed mentioned above, and was interested to see that Richard Dawkins can sometimes be guilty of limited thinking himself. In case people are interested, I've written about this - and, from the same article, Francis Collins' ideas on intelligent design - in the latest post on my blog.

You are a theist; however, you are different than most. You have questioned your religion. In my eyes, and in the eyes of Patrick Henry: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Anyway, I don't care what someone's beliefs are, as long as you think about it first and do not blindly have faith.[/i]

Thanks for your words, overcaffein8d! Yes, I do try to think about this stuff - not least because I find it so fascinating. As for people who blindly have faith, I personally don't have a problem with that if they find it helpful. I'm sure that such faith has assisted many people in living rich and fulfilling lives. However, if they start using their own beliefs to try to place restrictions on other people or trying to persuade others to believe the same as they do, then, yes, I think it is reasonable to expect them to come up with better arguments than "because the bible says so".

uh, amen.
lol

Going back to the original subject, the "the chances of this part of the universe being able to support our lives are infinitesimal, therefore it must have been designed for us" argument...

Consider the following: you have a perfect random number generator, and ask it to give you a number between one and one billion. After you've got that number, think about it: what are the chances of that particular number being chosen by chance? Why, it's one in a billion! The chances are so small, that it must have been consciously chosen by some intelligent force!

Now, does that make sense? I think not, and I'm sure you all can say why.

And that is, basically, the same as the "universe designed for us" argument. The chances of these values coming up at random are so small, that it can't have happened by chance.

Only... the previous example shows that it can. In fact, any number could have been chosen at random. After you get it, sure, the chances were one in a billion... but so would they be for any other number. And you've already proved that that number can be chosen at random, because that's what you've just done!

This post was last modified: 12-18-2006 08:40 PM by Pedro Timóteo.

Also see anthropism: we see that we exist as we do because if the past had been some other way, we wouldn't be what we are here and now. Not a very good summary, but I'm a little busy.