Post below continues from the "do you believe in God?" thread. It's
vaguely more appropriate here given the content.
Let's assume the common Atheist view. We don't properly understand how life began (abiogenesis?) so we don't know if life is totally adaptable to different conditions.
How is that the "common atheist view"?
Also, the beginnings of life have little to do with the continued evolution of life (which is a subject for a different thread, really). We know life is adaptable to different conditions because we have the evidence in front of us on Earth. Life has adapted through things like ice ages, so we know it adapts to conditions. This would be no different than had the conditions on Earth been subtley different.
Obviously had the conditions on Earth been vastly different, then life probably wouldn't have started in the same way (or at all). We could have a planet like Mars instead, which lost its magnetosphere, the protective elements of its atmosphere, and therefore any chance to sustain life. Did life exist on Mars before this happened though? Potentially. It just happens that Earth is doing better in the long-term.
I agree that science isn't philosophy, but can you discuss the existence of a deity without using philosophy?
You cannot, but the flaw in your argument is that you attempted to use a "scientific" video to prove the existence of a deity. That guy's job, a "philosopher of science" is a complete waste of time. It exists solely to draw dubious connections between science and religion.
It is rather alarming for a scientist to perform such a mistake, but maybe he used the explanation of 'explosion' to explain the theory to a non-enthusiast viewer more efficiently?
In which case, he's not a very good scientist. The best explanations for incredibly complex scientific theories I've heard have been from Professor Brian Cox, but he doesn't feel the need to simplify things that much that they become inaccurate.
Describing the "big bang" as an explosion has no justification beyond twisting the words to fit the ideals of the video.
With the video I provided above, along with the fact that we don't know how life began (or the probability of life beginning) we don't actually know wether this is true or not. I suppose the fine tuning argument is speculative.
We do know it's true because it's measurable and happening all the time.
There's a simple explanation of it on Wikipedia, but essentially there are several factors that contribute to how much gravity you're subjected to across the planet. If you're on the equator, gravity is weaker than at the poles, for example, thanks to centrifugal force and distance from the planet's core.
The difference means gravity is stronger by 0.5% at the poles than it is at the equator. Or, put another way, if I weigh my 63.5kg at the equator, I'm an extra 32 grams or so heavier at the North pole...
Often I have been accused for using 'the god of the gaps' in arguments, but maybe you are doing something similar with just saying 'evolution did it'.
...except evolution has nothing to do with what I wrote. Evolution has very little to do with Galileo creating a telescope to view the heavens beyond him simply being there in the first place. Likewise, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the observable laws of physics breaking down a the singularity in a black hole.
I admit evolution is a strong theory (I still have yet to make up my kind if I accept it or not)
If you choose not to accept evolution, that's a problem with yourself, rather than the strength of the evidence for evolution.
but perhaps you are ignoring fascinating topics such as consciousness itself and how or why we are conscious.
Human consciousness is fascinating, but there's absolutely nothing fascinating about assuming it was given to us by an all-powerful being rather. I find it infinitely more fascinating to study scientifically and learn how consciousness developed, rather than saying "isn't God great? He let us observe the world around us".
I remember a scientist saying that nobody knows what consciousness, or energy actually is. I'm sorry I can't find any links about that at the moment.
Then refrain from bringing it up.
I have admitted that God's existence cannot be proven. I am attempting to use science (or the natural world) to make the idea of a deity more plausible (to the atheist).
...which is futile.
Firstly, you're again under the mistaken assumption that all atheists have a scientific mind. That's no different than someone assuming that no scientists are religious - something you seem so keen to dispel, yet you're happy to make an ignorant assumption to the contrary.
The plausibility of a deity is no more provable by science than the existence of God himself. You cannot look to the cosmos scientifically and say "look! This suggests it was God!". It ceases to become science, and it also dumps on the faith that deists hold so sacred.
As soon as you start trying to prove that God exists, faith is no longer required, which is the backbone of religion.
I don't accept that last point. I hope I have explained why in this, along with other previous posts.
You've explained why you think that the universe was finely tuned for life and not the other way around, and I'm telling you that's rubbish.
), life coming from chaotic beginnings makes more sense to me. (If indeed, one can make sense of chaos)
