- #1
brushman
- 113
- 1
Someone gave me the argument...
In other words, a complex system allowing for intelligent life is unlikely a mere coincidence. Thus, suggesting a "creator".
Myself being scientifically immature, the only counter point I could think of is: we don't know all the possible combination of different physical laws that allow for intelligent life, so how can we know the probability of a universe that can harbor intelligent life?
From researching online another point seems to be that we don't know how these laws are generated, so how can we determine it's unlikely? I also read some stuff about anthropic principle, but I don't really know what that is.
Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".
Thanks.
Either all space, time, matter, energy, natural laws, chemical properties, mathematical formulae, organic information, consciousness, rationality, music, etc., is the result of Conscious Something (Creator Mind) or just itself (chance matter).
Theist or atheist…both require faith.
In other words, a complex system allowing for intelligent life is unlikely a mere coincidence. Thus, suggesting a "creator".
Myself being scientifically immature, the only counter point I could think of is: we don't know all the possible combination of different physical laws that allow for intelligent life, so how can we know the probability of a universe that can harbor intelligent life?
From researching online another point seems to be that we don't know how these laws are generated, so how can we determine it's unlikely? I also read some stuff about anthropic principle, but I don't really know what that is.
Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".
Thanks.
Last edited: