Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED

[brodie]

@tig said:

I know that if priests tell you that your God is the one true one and that everyone else is wrong, it's comforting... but let's get serious here, logically how can your ideas of God be 'better' than someone else's ?

The same way your ideas of your father and mother can be 'better' than someone else's. You know them better, they've shared themselves with you and vice versa. In a theological sense it stands to reason that if there's a God and he's revealed himself then those folks to study and believe this revelation would know him better than those who haven't or don't.

@unknownuser said:

OK... I know that God supposedly 'gave' us free-will and it's our misuse of it that then supposedly causes these issues; but then again... being all-powerful and knowing of everything when God decided to dole out free-will, he did it in the certain knowledge of the outcome - he knows everything after all; so God knew we would misuse it, that's built into its very specification - so for God to dare to punish us when we do exactly what he knows we will do with his 'gift', is frankly unacceptable double-think.

That's a heck of a deep question but I think your assumption here is faulty. You're assuming it's unreasonable to punish people for something that you knew they would do, but that foreknowledge is irrelevant. We don't have the same sort of foreknowledge perhaps, but we can see this to a lesser extent in real life. When you have a child you know that they're going to lie to you, deceive you, manipulate you, drink before they're of age, etc. You might not know exactly WHEN those things will happen, but you know they'll do these sorts of things. And yet you still decide to have that child and you still punish the child when he/she does these things.

@unknownuser said:

The idea that the universe [everything we 'see'] was 'created', presupposes a 'creator'.
If you call that creator 'God', job done.
Traditionally God made the universe from 'nothing'.
Now when scientists [in my opinion] successfully demonstrate that the universe could have spontaneous popped into existence out of 'nothing', without a creator being needed, the God-gang say "...but how can you make something out of nothing?", ignoring their own belief that God did just that. It appears that it's a basic property of 'existence' that 'stuff' - ranging from the tiniest subatomic particle to a whole universe, can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear again; however, sometimes this 'stuff' stays around and doesn't disappear, that's how things happen...

Theists have been maintaining for a very long time that the universe had a finite beginning before which there was nothing, and after which there was everything. Scientists, maintaining this was impossible, came up with other theories until the big bang was discovered. There is no scientific evidence that everything that ever existed (including space and time) could have came into being out of (literally) nowhere, from nothing, and with no cause.

@unknownuser said:

Perhaps if there is a God the most 'he' did was set up the basic weird laws of quantum physics that allow this spontaneous bubbling up of 'stuff' out of complete 'nothingness'... with that the entire universe becomes self-generating... but 'we' certainly don't need a day-to-day God who's poking around in how things work/work-out now - surely we've left the 'supernatural' behind - there's enough 'awe' in the way the 'real' world behaves, without inventing extra layers of complexity that are no longer needed to explain things adequately.

This view is called deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). It's certainly a widespread idea out there but it's not how I see things playing out.

-Brodie

[brodie]

@alan fraser said:

There's also ample evidence that the octopus eye developed entirely separately from that of vertebrates...yet still managed to end up looking fairly similar, suggesting that not only is the natural development of something as complicated as the human eye entirely possible, it's actually fairly routine, if not inevitable.

The same evidence could be interpreted by theists as having a common designer. It's not really evidence against anything as far as I can tell. As far as man being made in God's image, it's not referring to physical characteristics so how are eyes look, or even if we have eyes at all is irrelevant and says nothing about God's "appearance."

As Marian said, we've seen and heard it all before. Like all this kind of stuff, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who isn't prepared to accept it unquestioningly. In essence, he's preaching to those who are already of a like mind.

@unknownuser said:

Take for instance the (misleading) nonsense about the earth's orbit around the sun. If it was any different from that which it is, we wouldn't freeze to death...we just wouldn't be here at all. There's no life on Venus or Mars, our nearest neighbours.
This reverse-engineering of reality is immensely fraudulent. It makes it sound like God just said "Poof!" and got it right first time. It completely ignores the fact that entire generations of stars had to be born, live out their lives, then die in spectacular super-novae in order to produce all the heavier elements like iron and calcium that are found in our solar system and are needed to make us what we are.
Nine billion years when there was no blue dot circling a star at exactly the right distance. Nine billion years to produce just the right combination of stardust that eventually led to us.

The point is that the fact that there's anything at all is pretty astounding. That the 'something' that exists happens to have the physical laws and constants that make life possible is something more. And that those things have actually created a space where this life exists is yet more. Obviously, if those things didn't all come together, we wouldn't be around to wonder about it. But that doesn't change the astronomical odds of those things having all occurred.

-Brodie

[srx]

@unknownuser said:

since there is no equivalent,
we may not be able to think about him using all that we have around as comparison.
anything that we could possibly see, hear or feel. with our senses and thought.
or, let alone draw a picture. even to get raw ideas about him.

I agree.

So I don't think this "human logic" of superman, or man - god kind of thinking can give us answers:

@unknownuser said:

so for God to dare to punish us when we do exactly what he knows we will do with his 'gift', is frankly unacceptable double-think.

It simply is not our level of existence.
To prove with our pure mind YES, there is God, or to prove NOT there isn't...we can not do that. We can only believe.

Again Dostoevsky made experiments whit his heroes to find the answer. The sense of good and evil deep rooted in all of us made him believe in creator. He searched inside.

[Alan Fraser]

@unknownuser said:

The point is that the fact that there's anything at all is pretty astounding. That the 'something' that exists happens to have the physical laws and constants that make life possible is something more. And that those things have actually created a space where this life exists is yet more. Obviously, if those things didn't all come together, we wouldn't be around to wonder about it. But that doesn't change the astronomical odds of those things having all occurred.

-Brodie

But that's exactly my point. The chances of intelligent life evolving in orbit around any given star are far higher than the odds of winning the lottery (which are high enough to start with). Nevertheless it happens...in both cases.

For a theist to then reason that because this cosy little planet happens to be in what the scientists call the Goldilocks Zone (not too hot, not too cold) is in some manner proof of divine intervention, is exactly the same as them arguing divine intervention in the case of the single winner of the lottery whilst conveniently ignoring the millions of punters that failed. It's a disingenuous use of mathematics and the laws of probablity.
The estimated number of galaxies in the universe just increased by 300% after the Hubble Deep Space investigations. It's now estimated that there are around 400 billion galaxies each containing on average maybe 200 billion stars. That makes 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars...orders of magnitude more than all the grains of sand on every beach on earth. Even if you make astronomically huge conservative calculations about the number of suitable stars having suitable planets for intelligent life to develop on, that still leaves millions of possible contenders.

As for the octopus eye, it in no way could be used as evidence of a common designer...not unless a theist wanted to turn all his usual arguments on their head. The human and octopus eyes may look superficially similar but in origin couldn't be more different. the human eye is an extension of the brain; the octopus eye is a cavitation of its skin. They are examples of convergent evolution and have nothing in common at all other than their present convergent physical form.
They are as much evidence of a common designer as a whale oil lamp and an LED.

[brodie]

@alan fraser said:

But that's exactly my point. The chances of intelligent life evolving in orbit around any given star are far higher than the odds of winning the lottery (which are high enough to start with). Nevertheless it happens...in both cases.

It's more complicated than that. First of all, I haven't seen the estimates that suggest winning the lottery is less probably than the existence of life. Secondly, SOMEONE is guaranteed to win the lottery whereas there's no guarantee of life so the 2 don't relate statistically speaking. Thirdly, the existence of life comes down to much more than how far away a planet is from a star. It goes all the way back to the physical laws and constants of our universe.

Look into this article a bit. You'll find some good info as well as refutations. I don't see any of the refutations that sounds more than someone grasping at straws personally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

@unknownuser said:

The estimated number of galaxies in the universe just increased by 300% after the Hubble Deep Space investigations. It's now estimated that there are around 400 billion galaxies each containing on average maybe 200 billion stars. That makes 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars...orders of magnitude more than all the grains of sand on every beach on earth. Even if you make astronomically huge conservative calculations about the number of suitable stars having suitable planets for intelligent life to develop on, that still leaves millions of possible contenders.

I've seen statistics that would disagree. Even given the staggering size of the universe, the statistical probability of life is equally staggering. Regardless, the point is that there's life at all, which there is. If there's also life on 3 or 3 million other planets it's irrelevant to the discussion.

@unknownuser said:

As for the octopus eye, it in no way could be used as evidence of a common designer...not unless a theist wanted to turn all his usual arguments on their head. The human and octopus eyes may look superficially similar but in origin couldn't be more different. the human eye is an extension of the brain; the octopus eye is a cavitation of its skin. They are examples of convergent evolution and have nothing in common at all other than their present convergent physical form.
They are as much evidence of a common designer as a whale oil lamp and an LED.

You're the one that pointed out the similarities, not me. You seem to be suggesting that the evolution of the eyes is completely different so the fact that they ended up so similar argues against a common designer. I don't see how. A theist who doesn't believe in macro evolution would simply suggest that the human and the octopus currently have similar systems which perform similar functions and how you want to construct a theoretical evolutionary tree to support a preconceived theory is irrelevant. A theist who believes in evolution would still point out that, as you say, they have current similarities which, regardless, of how they evolved, may still point to a common designer. 2 houses designed by the same architect may go through very different evolutions throughout a design process and yet still end up having certain similarities in the end (or at some point in the middle) based on the architects proclivities.

-Brodie

[Marian]

@unknownuser said:

That's a heck of a deep question but I think your assumption here is faulty. You're assuming it's unreasonable to punish people for something that you knew they would do, but that foreknowledge is irrelevant. We don't have the same sort of foreknowledge perhaps, but we can see this to a lesser extent in real life. When you have a child you know that they're going to lie to you, deceive you, manipulate you, drink before they're of age, etc. You might not know exactly WHEN those things will happen, but you know they'll do these sorts of things. And yet you still decide to have that child and you still punish the child when he/she does these things.

I'm sorry but your reasoning is the one that is faulty. You can't compare god creating man with a man having a child. God creating humans is much more comparable to man building a car/watch. When a man has a child he does not have complete control of the way he will be created or complete knowledge of his son's future so he can't really take the same steps as god.
Here is why god is to blame for our imperfections. If god knew when he made us that we will be faulty then he is to blame for the faults and our mistakes. When a auto company builds a faulty car knowingly or unknowingly you don't blame or punish the car for the defects but its creator. In our world a creator is in most cases responsible for his creations.

Also if an auto company could predict how it's future car will perform in every way I suspect they would be smart enough,unlike god, to improve their design so they can maximize their profit, increase their prestige and reduce the chance of defects.

[JuanV.Soler]

Why not to think that we are the living creatures that share this universe without any other proposal ?
If we reach to the point of thinking that it is sacred well that is, here we are that is all
let us be happy and rich for a while
let us not bother about anything else
let us create and be

---

the problem is to be God ... then you have to invent
we are all we have
and God is with us inside
for a while
that´s all
let us share the good and avoid the non creative non positive thinking
it is a while
and we can make it a good good while
only thing needed is to share to unite with everything in living, in alive

---

to answer the question, of course God created the universe, who else ? that american actor of the coffee mints ?

[srx]

@unknownuser said:

they can maximize their profit, increase their prestige and reduce the chance of defects.

...and what do you think is Gods goal in designing humans? He has nobody to compete with...
I don't think this materialist way of thinking is right in this discussion.

@unknownuser said:

When you have a child you know that they're going to lie to you, deceive you, manipulate you, drink before they're of age, etc. You might not know exactly WHEN those things will happen, but you know they'll do these sorts of things. And yet you still decide to have that child and you still punish the child when he/she does these things.

This is more close for me than designing a car. Love is the goal. And for love you need freedom - free will, don't you?

[brodie]

@marian said:

I'm sorry but your reasoning is the one that is faulty. You can't compare god creating man with a man having a child. God creating humans is much more comparable to man building a car/watch. When a man has a child he does not have complete control of the way he will be created or complete knowledge of his son's future so he can't really take the same steps as god.

You're combining two separate issues or questions. Why did God make us imperfect? And, why does God punish our imperfections which He instilled in us. From a Christian perspective God didn't make us imperfect. He made us with freewill which is not evil but does allow for the possibility of good or evil (without freewill neither is possible). Adam and Eve were the ones who chose evil and thereby created a fallen nature which has been passed down to us resulting in the 'imperfection' we see today. What you seem to be suggesting is that God should have made humans such that there free choice would always result in the 'right' or 'good' decision but that is not freewill.

As for the second question, God disciplines humans with consequences for the same reason a parent disciplines their child.

@unknownuser said:

Here is why god is to blame for our imperfections. If god knew when he made us that we will be faulty then he is to blame for the faults and our mistakes. When a auto company builds a faulty car knowingly or unknowingly you don't blame or punish the car for the defects but its creator. In our world a creator is in most cases responsible for his creations.

God didn't instill in humans the proclivity toward sin. As I've explained, he made us with the free will. So you question, then becomes, if God knew we'd not be perfect and sinless forever then why create us at all? I'm not sure there's a truly definitive answer to that question but what we do know is that he hasn't just left us to toil forever on our own in a deistic sense. He has provided a means by which we can be restored.

@unknownuser said:

Also if an auto company could predict how it's future car will perform in every way I suspect they would be smart enough,unlike god, to improve their design so they can maximize their profit, increase their prestige and reduce the chance of defects.

Firstly, all car companies do know how their cars will perform. There will be a certain number which malfunction right away. The rest will malfunction at some later point. And yet the car companies (as well as ourselves) have deemed that we're better off with cars than without.

At any rate, there's an important difference between cars and people. Imperfections in cars are just imperfections. No one wants them, they cost money to fix, etc. However, our imperfections do, in fact, serve some purpose - not least of which is that it is in times of struggle that we tend to see God most clearly or seek after him most earnestly. When things are going well all the time it can be easy to fall into pride and to refrain from relying on God.

-Brodie

[brodie]

@solo said:

Okay, lets for the sake of shits and giggles assume God DID create everything known and unknown..... WHY?

Needed an ant farm? was lonely? cruel bastard that wants to see his creatures suffer?

From a Christian perspective God is perfect and complete within Himself. He didn't create man because of any 'need' but because of who He is. He's loving, giving, caring, compassionate, etc. In short He created us in order to give to us and to love us and for us to enjoy and glorify Him. This is perhaps most evident in Genesis directly after he created Adam and Eve where the picture is of God walking with them in an intimate relationship.

-Brodie

[Marian]

@unknownuser said:

From a Christian perspective God is perfect and complete within Himself. He didn't create man because of any 'need' but because of who He is. He's loving, giving, caring, compassionate, etc. In short He created us in order to give to us and to love us and for us to enjoy and glorify Him.

If god is perfect then anything he created is perfect, then humans are perfect.
If humans are created in the image of god and since humans are imperfect then god is also imperfect.
I don't particularly feel or see the love of this god. If god is love and he's perfect why did he flood the world and killed everything on it. Where is the compassion there? Why didn't he forgive. Or where is the compassion or love for the tribes that god sanctioned the Jews to exterminate together with their children and animals?
Why does he need us to glorify him? Why?? I certainly don't want to worship him or any other person or deity in life or in death. Where is the pleasure in being a humble servant for eternity?
God/s and the concepts that suround him/them are completely crazy. I have a better chance of understanding quantum physics then the reasons why people belive such things. I can't see why these would ever comfort anyone.

[brodie]

@solo said:

So he was lonely and wanted (avoided using the word "need") something to love then?

Sounds pretty silly to me, but then again all religions do.

No. He's a creator and a giver, those are simply his characteristics. So what does a creator/giver do? He creates beings to give to. It's a bit more complex than that no doubt but the point is that he wasn't simply 'lonely' and wanted someone to talk to or filling some unmet need. The Christian God is a trinity which in itself has a sort of community which in itself would preclude a sense of loneliness.

-Brodie

[TIG]

Brodie

How can you state in one breath that God is perfect and unique and then come along with that old chestnut of the 'Trinity' - that was itself invented by men to bodge over the issue of one God split into - the father, the son and the holy ghost [aka spirit] - where three is one and one is three - doh what ? It makes no sense at all.. there is supposed to be one God [or there isn't one God] ... so why make God out of just three distinct parts [which was in fact devised to incorporate a divine Jesus into the mix, and to cover various older pagan beliefs too] - if you want to consider God as both a single indivisible entity and 'several aspects'... then why not take ALL of the aspects of creation, with it's undeniable awe and wonder, that would make your God multi-faceted, but still 'one', and not just use these 'three' weaker compromises [nothing against Jesus and co but why fudge the issue like this for over a thousand years !] - this whole Trinity thing only got started to be legitimized after the Council of Nicaea et al [when MEN decided what the official line would be - I suspect that God wasn't actually there at the meeting [probably!]]; which was after many hundred years of Christians 'happily' having only the 'One True God' of the Old Testament [even now the Unitarian Christians want just one God, I believe !... and most mono-theist religions also expect 'oneness' from a deity]

I can accept that the core tenets of Christianity do have a positive role to play in the lives of many; BUT I am still aghast at how Christians can believe the cant of their church, when it defies simple common-sense and logic...

Sorry if I offend anyone, I'm just telling it as it is...

[michaliszissiou]

May I?
From a Christian perspective... God created the Universe, is Jesus a creation of God too? Before the existence of time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Do you know how many people suffered and died because of silly questions like these?
Another Wittgenstein's quote then.
"Make sure that your religion is a matter between you and God only"

To search God is like searching for a purpose in the Universe.
Is this what we're talking about? A purpose?
Because, if God is a before time creator or the universe just jumped out of nothing, these aren't much different sentences.

[Mike Lucey]

I've read through and am still on the fence but deep down think that God as portrayed by most religions is delusionary. But at the end of the day I may find out or never find out!

I have, give or take a few, 5,840 of them left before I find out. To explain, I'm 61 and at 60 for men life expectancy is approx. 16 years here in Ireland. Kinda puts things into perspective for me. Might even start a count down, day by day, for a laugh

If we can't laugh about it we are in trouble. If God exists I would hope that he and the bunch around have a good sense of humour otherwise it will be very boring for me spending the rest of eternity is such an atmosphere. Then again, there is always the 'other' place according the the Christian faith at least.

On the subject of Hell, I wonder how many other religions have such in their beliefs?

[brodie]

@marian said:

If god is perfect then anything he created is perfect, then humans are perfect.
If humans are created in the image of god and since humans are imperfect then god is also imperfect.

Humans (Adam and Eve) were created perfect. But within that perfection was the characteristic of freewill which by definition allows for both good and evil decisions. At some point they chose evil and from then on instilled in mankind a sinful nature - a proclivity towards sin. Man wasn't created imperfect, essentially man chose imperfection.

I should also point out here that we're probably using very different definitions of the work 'perfect.' The idea of 'perfect' as it exists in western culture today - this idea of being free from fault and defect - is fairly recent. Going back to the Hebrew roots of the Bible the word 'perfect' meant something more like mature, complete, or lacking nothing.

@unknownuser said:

I don't particularly feel or see the love of this god. If god is love and he's perfect why did he flood the world and killed everything on it. Where is the compassion there? Why didn't he forgive. Or where is the compassion or love for the tribes that god sanctioned the Jews to exterminate together with their children and animals?

Aside from Noah the inclination of everyone's heart was evil all the time. That's not a good world to grow up in. If mankind hadn't been purged, it's reasonable to conclude that after Noah was gone, there would be no good in the world. To forgive that isn't merciful but would be evil of the highest degree.

Likewise God is rightfully the judge of mankind. He didn't tell Israel to destroy all of their enemies but did order certain peoples to be wiped out. In each case we find that God is using Israel as a tool of His judgement as these were terribly evil people - sacrificing children to false gods by burning them on alters and the like. Note that most Christians believe in some form of an 'age of accountability' which means the children who were killed were saved from growing up into a deplorable lifestyle and facing ultimate punishment but would have instead been redeemed as they'd yet to reach this age.

@unknownuser said:

Why does he need us to glorify him? Why??

He doesn't. He wants us to glorify him for the same reason a good parent wants their child to show them respect and honor. It's not because the parent selfishly needs respect and honor from a 10 year old girl, but because the girl's life will be more fulfilling and rich and peaceful if she learns those characteristics which lead to respecting and honoring her parents.

@unknownuser said:

I certainly don't want to worship him or any other person or deity in life or in death. Where is the pleasure in being a humble servant for eternity?

That's a choice we all have to make. One thing I sincerely admire is that you've obviously thought about it and made a conscious decision. There are many folks on both sides of our discussion who have simply gone with the flow and never even considered the question.

@unknownuser said:

God/s and the concepts that suround him/them are completely crazy. I have a better chance of understanding quantum physics then the reasons why people belive such things.

The Bible says that, "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." That's speaking specifically about what Christ did on the cross but it's not totally untrue in a larger sense as well. It also says in Proverbs, "there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."

We can know a great deal about God and what He's done, but there is still a huge gap and it should come as no surprise that there remain a number of mysteries and sometimes he does things that completely surprise us. We see this throughout the Bible where God does the unexpected and sometimes inexplicable so you're in good company.

@unknownuser said:

I can't see why these would ever comfort anyone.

They aren't meant to. Contemporary Western Christian culture often falls into the idea that the point of God is to make us comfortable. On the contrary, living a life devoted to God is often dangerous, unsettling, and disturbing. Christian history is full of people being martyred for their faith, being beaten, being shipwrecked during missionary journeys, moving across the world to spend their lives serving the poor, diseased, and oppressed, giving away all that they own, etc. You don't become a Christian because it's easy or comfortable, but because it's true and the life is fulfilling.

-Brodie

[brodie]

@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

@solo said:

So he was lonely and wanted (avoided using the word "need") something to love then?

Sounds pretty silly to me, but then again all religions do.

No. He's a creator and a giver, those are simply his characteristics. So what does a creator/giver do? He creates beings to give to. It's a bit more complex than that no doubt but the point is that he wasn't simply 'lonely' and wanted someone to talk to or filling some unmet need. The Christian God is a trinity which in itself has a sort of community which in itself would preclude a sense of loneliness.

-Brodie

Really, and that explanation works for you, makes any sense?

There's plenty about God and Christianity that puzzles me, but I don't spend much time wondering about this one.

-Brodie

[brodie]

@tig said:

Brodie

How can you state in one breath that God is perfect and unique and then come along with that old chestnut of the 'Trinity' - that was itself invented by men to bodge over the issue of one God split into - the father, the son and the holy ghost [aka spirit] - where three is one and one is three - doh what ? It makes no sense at all.. there is supposed to be one God [or there isn't one God] ... so why make God out of just three distinct parts [which was in fact devised to incorporate a divine Jesus into the mix, and to cover various older pagan beliefs too] - if you want to consider God as both a single indivisible entity and 'several aspects'... then why not take ALL of the aspects of creation, with it's undeniable awe and wonder, that would make your God multi-faceted, but still 'one', and not just use these 'three' weaker compromises [nothing against Jesus and co but why fudge the issue like this for over a thousand years !] - this whole Trinity thing only got started to be legitimized after the Council of Nicaea et al [when MEN decided what the official line would be - I suspect that God wasn't actually there at the meeting [probably!]]; which was after many hundred years of Christians 'happily' having only the 'One True God' of the Old Testament [even now the Unitarian Christians want just one God, I believe !... and most mono-theist religions also expect 'oneness' from a deity]

I can accept that the core tenets of Christianity do have a positive role to play in the lives of many; BUT I am still aghast at how Christians can believe the cant of their church, when it defies simple common-sense and logic...

Sorry if I offend anyone, I'm just telling it as it is...

In honesty, for all the discussion I'm down for, I'm not sure the trinity is really one of them. Not because I take offence to the question or anything. It's just far too nuanced of a doctrine than I'm willing to dive into here - having to deal a lot with defining words, digging into history, and quoting scriptures.

Here's a good but brief explanation of what it is as I think your main issue is a misunderstanding of the trinity and how it's derived in scripture http://carm.org/trinity

-Brodie

[Alan Fraser]

Brodie, my apologies for bad grammar; I meant the chances against intelligent life evolving, not chances of it evolving. It is, of course far less likely than winning the lottery (which is what I meant). Nevertheless the numbers still stand.

Of course there are more factors involved in creating conditions for life than a planet's distance from its sun. When did I say there weren't? It was Spence's Mormon quote that seemed to set such great store in the 'godlike' precision of earth's orbit.
It was precisely in countering that claim...that the earth is somehow a 'chosen planet' that I gave the figures indicating how many other such planets there may be in the universe.

How can that possibly by irrelevant, as you claim? Inconvenient, maybe; irrelevant, certainly not. You appear to be rather fond of declaring things to be irrelevant without any obvious justification.

I'm not really interested in what statistics you have seen that counteract my figures. My figures are the most recent available and the ones used by the world's leading cosmologists.

@unknownuser said:

You're the one that pointed out the similarities, not me. You seem to be suggesting that the evolution of the eyes is completely different so the fact that they ended up so similar argues against a common designer. I don't see how. A theist who doesn't believe in macro evolution would simply suggest that the human and the octopus currently have similar systems which perform similar functions and how you want to construct a theoretical evolutionary tree to support a preconceived theory is irrelevant.

There we go with the irrelevant again.
I didn't point out the similarities, I pointed out the superiority, in many ways, of the octopus eye to our own

So you originally claimed that this supposed similarity (which I didn't point out) could be proof of a common designer. Now you're saying that their dissimilarity could also be proof of a common designer? Is there any condition that wouldn't be proof of a common designer...or is that presupposition built-in?

The fact that you claim that a theist can argue a common designer regardless of the relationship between the two optical systems only goes to prove that theists don't argue at all. They do, indeed, simply claim that God did it....period. That's not an argument.

It's not necessary to construct an evolutionary tree...theoretical or otherwise; close study of the developing young of either species can clearly demonstrate the eye forming as an offshoot of the brain or a hollowing-out of the epidermis.

I'm not sure which preconceived theory you are referring to. If it's evolution itself then that is immeasurably less preconceived than the presupposition of a deity, There is a mountain of utterly conclusive evidence for evolution, there is non whatsoever for the existence of God.

[Dropout]

@alan fraser said:

Brodie, my apologies for bad grammar; I meant the chances against intelligent life evolving, not chances of it evolving. It is, of course far less likely than winning the lottery (which is what I meant). Nevertheless the numbers still stand.

Of course there are more factors involved in creating conditions for life than a planet's distance from its sun. When did I say there weren't? It was Spence's Mormon quote that seemed to set such great store in the 'godlike' precision of earth's orbit.
It was precisely in countering that claim...that the earth is somehow a 'chosen planet' that I gave the figures indicating how many other such planets there may be in the universe.

How can that possibly by irrelevant, as you claim? Inconvenient, maybe; irrelevant, certainly not. You appear to be rather fond of declaring things to be irrelevant without any obvious justification.

I'm not really interested in what statistics you have seen that counteract my figures. My figures are the most recent available and the ones used by the world's leading cosmologists.

@unknownuser said:

You're the one that pointed out the similarities, not me. You seem to be suggesting that the evolution of the eyes is completely different so the fact that they ended up so similar argues against a common designer. I don't see how. A theist who doesn't believe in macro evolution would simply suggest that the human and the octopus currently have similar systems which perform similar functions and how you want to construct a theoretical evolutionary tree to support a preconceived theory is irrelevant.

There we go with the irrelevant again.
I didn't point out the similarities, I pointed out the superiority, in many ways, of the octopus eye to our own

So you originally claimed that this supposed similarity (which I didn't point out) could be proof of a common designer. Now you're saying that their dissimilarity could also be proof of a common designer? Is there any condition that wouldn't be proof of a common designer...or is that presupposition built-in?

The fact that you claim that a theist can argue a common designer regardless of the relationship between the two optical systems only goes to prove that theists don't argue at all. They do, indeed, simply claim that God did it....period. That's not an argument.

It's not necessary to construct an evolutionary tree...theoretical or otherwise; close study of the developing young of either species can clearly demonstrate the eye forming as an offshoot of the brain or a hollowing-out of the epidermis.

I'm not sure which preconceived theory you are referring to. If it's evolution itself then that is immeasurably less preconceived than the presupposition of a deity, There is a mountain of utterly conclusive evidence for evolution, there is non whatsoever for the existence of God.

I'm not aware of any serious Christian who would argue against the evolution of a species. Life from nothing is another matter, and even if that were true, I would argue that the step from a single celled organism that evolved from the primordial ooze to male and female is a greater stumbling block to the evolution theory. It is unnecessary, inefficient and too complicated for it to have evolved as the best way to reproduce.

I find it interesting that Dawkins will state categorically that the world was not created by God but will suggest that life may have been seeded here by extraterrestrials (interview in Expelled - no intelligence allowed) or that it had something to do with crystals. That sounds even more far fetched to me.

At the end of the day, there are serious minds on both sides of the issue. There is no proof either way.