Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Isn't this all too perfect.. too well functioning as a mechanism.. ecosystem.
You don't think that even the atomic reaction that triggered all these reactions was the least bit deliberate or calculated?
I don't think so. It's not perfect either, it's very flawed. Organisms go extinct, mountains disappear (yeah.. takes some time but still  ), planets explode and so on. There may be a balance of some kind which may seem as if perfect. But it's only a sign of how interactive this universe is to me. It's all linked, is it therefore perfect? There's a LOT of failure involved, despite the relative efficient way of how the overall system works.
The entire system is like one giant organism of interaction, how can parts within be created? How can anything outside of it create that organism of interaction? How can the creator itself exist without having a creator of it's own? You're right back at where you started if you assume there has been a creator or designer, because why would it make sense that A. creates B., when A. wasn't created but nonetheless exists or existed and was able to create B.? It's contradicting in nature. Do you believe in an infinite amount of creators? I bet not, so why does it still make sense in your opinion?
I find it already extremely difficult to look at the universe as if it had a beginning, but I'm very sure there haven't been an infinite amount of creators, because that would mean that there still are (real) creators everywhere. How come we don't see? Or wait, perhaps these creators are anomalies in space creating the conditions for life to come in to existence? Off course then we aren't talking about a designer anymore, no being, but simply reaction upon reaction because of these "anomalies"? That's the part of 'creation' that does make sense to me, but that's not 'designed creation'.
Quote:
Design implies calculation.. which is simply applying the rules of the universe that are already there.. and using those rules to determine what will most likely result. That's what our higher science is, in fact. That's how we didn't blow ourselves up when we invented/discovered atomic power.
Rules that are there... yes, but it totally depends. Where in time do you put your creator and say there's when he came into play for this argument to make sense? Again there's the problem of infinite creators and also the problem of how a creator would fit within the reaction-system. I think if there was a creator we would have known by now seeing traces of 'it's work'.
No way a creator could predict all the rules and results, not if you can't know the rules in the first place because of ever changing circumstances. It's simply too complex to be designed in my opinion. But like I said, in our view it might all seem too complex, because we are a tiny part of this all and already have trouble understanding our own problems let alone the grand scheme of interaction of everything.
By the way, actually, a lot of things went wrong with atomic power in the early days. A lot of people did die because of experimenting with it, because we didn't know the danger involved or underestimated it and so on. We're clever, but not thát clever. Nor should we, because no-one can predict everything, no matter how intelligent we are. Scientists often are either right or wrong, even with atomic power and especially the atomic bomb they were wrong more than a few times in the early days.
Quote:
It (the universe) just seems to be.. to be too perfect.. too mechanical.. too functioning and stable to have been random, accidental, by chance.. and be what it is today. At best chances, coalescenet atomic reactions would have made stars of billions of kinds. No two stars would look alike. No two planets would be of the same configuration.. There would be too far infinite diversity.. and we know that that doesn't apply to at least the section of universe that we can see and detect.
I strongly disagree. Conditions might never be or never really are 100% the same, but as long as conditions are almost similar you wíll see similar results.
You can actually see that in our universe. Planets on equal distances from a sun like ours tend to look like ours or have properties like ours, further away means colder, the closer the warmer. Those are the kind of factors that define things. Mathematical chance may have all kinds of results, but conditions are simply conditions which will have set results. Some condition may have multiple possible results, some conditions definitely do not. We can't say our universe is extremely homogeneous nor extremely heterogeneous when it comes to really original things. We do have planets that look totally different, we do have planets that look very similar. That's true for almost everything on every scale.
Quote:
Atoms dont naturally get forced at random to make different atoms by fusion. Not unless they are forced to deliberately. That's because in nature, outside of life forms.. and even they, once born, are on a cycle of expiration.
Yes, but our knowledge is really very limited and our insights on these kinds of processes within the grand system are extremely relative.
I think that we do not know yet how that part of the interaction puzzle works or worked. It would even make sense to me if the rules would be able to change somehow, perhaps we simply do not comprehend because of our lack of knowledge?
A creator really seems like the easy way out to me and as said earlier it raises other questions instead of really solving a problem, apart from that it doesn't make sense to me for a lot of other reasons. We haven't started fantasizing yet, but what properties would that creator have had for it to be able to create? You already said that it must have been a male being, where I would say that it's totally unknown if it's even a 'being'. Perhaps it's ooze floating in space that causes conditions to change? Lol, again... our knowledge is too limited and therefore answering this question is problematic on almost every level,
Cheers
|
