Atheism Humor They said it . . .

New Evidence Against the Existence of God: Antarctica, Arizona, Atlantic Ocean

Spread the love

Recently over on this thread started by Barry we have been discussing one of the tired atheist arguments against God’s existence: bad design.  The discussion has been primarily in the context of some of Carl Sagan’s remarks cited by john_a_designer, but Sagan is by no means unique in his failed efforts.

Commenter rvb8 had the audacity to claim that the faulty “bad design” line of argumentation is in fact a “well argued point,” warning in the same breath that we mustn’t question Sagan because, well, Sagan was an important science guy.

When pressed on the matter, rvb8 dug in his heels and reasserted that the bad design line of argumentation “is sound,” pointing out that God was tremendously wasteful.

Now I’ve heard a lot of bad design arguments in the past, including those that fault God for a lack of efficiency and spartan sensibilities, but I have to admit I hadn’t heard such claims with quite as much specificity and audacity regarding the Earth itself.  Checking my calendar to confirm it wasn’t April Fool’s Day, I was forced to consider the possibility that rvb8 was earnest in his claims.

Gathering courage to tread where no logical mind has ever before trod, rvb8 offered up this gem of evidentiary support against God’s existence:

. . . this beautiful planet, so often given in evidence of God’s wonderful design is a nightmare of waste: 70% water, which his special creation, US, can’t live in; sporadic deserts, and two poles we have great difficulty in reaching, let alone utilizing; arid areas where only a meager existence can be rooted out; well done God.

There you have it folks.  Evidence against God is all around us: difficult-to-reach polar areas, sparsely-inhabited arid regions, and elsewhere . . . too much ocean!

Finding evidence against God’s existence is easy.  We can start alphabetically and before we even get out of the a’s we already have three “solid” pieces of evidence against the existence of God:

Antarctica

Arizona

Atlantic Ocean

. . .

I shudder to think what other powerful pieces of evidence might shake the foundations of theistic thought if we were to make it through the whole alphabet.

57 Replies to “New Evidence Against the Existence of God: Antarctica, Arizona, Atlantic Ocean

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    When I was looking at water specifically years ago, I was quite amazed by the many brilliant design features that water revealed.

    When we look at water, the most common substance on earth and in our bodies, water, we find many odd characteristics which clearly appear to be designed. These oddities are absolutely essential for life on earth. Some simple life can exist without the direct energy of sunlight, some simple life can exist without oxygen; but no life can exist without water. Water is called a universal solvent because it has the unique ability to dissolve a far wider range of substances than any other solvent. This ‘universal solvent’ ability of water is essential for the cells of living organisms to process the wide range of substances necessary for life. Another oddity is water expands as it becomes ice, by an increase of about 9% in volume. Thus, water floats when it becomes a solid instead of sinking. This is an exceedingly rare ability. Water is the only non-metallic substance on Earth with this property. Yet if it were not for this fact, lakes and oceans would freeze from the bottom up. The earth would be a frozen wasteland, and human life would not be possible. Water also has the unusual ability to pull itself into very fine tubes and small spaces, defying gravity. This is called capillary action. This action is essential for the breakup of mineral bearing rocks into soil. Water pulls itself into tiny spaces on the surface of a rock and freezes; it expands and breaks the rock into tinier pieces, thus producing soil. Capillary action is also essential for the movement of water through soil to the roots of plants. It is also essential for the movement of water from the roots to the tops of the plants, even to the tops of the mighty redwood trees,,,

    Towering Giants Of Teleological Beauty – October 2010
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....al-beauty/

    Prometheus Unbound: The Fitness of Nature for Large Trees – Michael Denton – March 27, 2015
    Excerpt: Many conditions must be met if large woody trees are to be possible.,,,
    (evaporative cooling, slow breakdown of lignin, and viscosity of water, are discussed),,,
    Concluding paragraph: Without the ensemble of unique fitness that raises water in trees there would be no wood, fire, metallurgy, or modern technology. Nor would you be reading these paragraphs; nature would not be properly fit for mankind to utilize his cognitive powers to understand the world. It is wonderfully fitting that this unique and stunningly elegant mechanism is intimately related to our role as explorers and manipulators of the world, providing a further indicator supportive of the anthropocentric notion of a world order focused on our being.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94751.html

    ,,,Capillary action is also essential for the circulation of the blood in our very own capillary blood vessels. As well, water’s melting and boiling point are not where common sense would indicate they should be when we look at its molecular weight. The three sister compounds of water all behave as would be predicted by their molecular weight. Oddly, water just happens to have melting and boiling points that are of optimal biological utility. Some other properties of water we measure, like its specific slipperiness (viscosity) and its ability to absorb and release more heat than any other natural substance, have to be as they are in order for life to be possible on earth. Even the oceans, contrary to what rvb8 believes, have to be the size they are in order to stabilize the temperature of the earth so that human life may be possible.

    Oceans vital for possibility for alien life – July 20, 2014
    Excerpt: “Oceans have an immense capacity to control climate. They are beneficial because they cause the surface temperature to respond very slowly to seasonal changes in solar heating. And they help ensure that temperature swings across a planet are kept to tolerable levels.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....203459.htm

    Water-Land Ratio of Habitable Planets – 2015
    Excerpt: In addition, recent studies on habitability of planets suggest that the water-land ratio must be similar to the Earth. That is, the water mass fraction should not be far from that of the Earth’s (~0.01wt%): planets with too much water (> 1 wt%)-“ocean planets”-lead to an unstable climate and lack of nutrient supply; and water-poor planets like Venus -“dune planets”-become too arid for inhabiting.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-planets/

    On and on through each characteristic we can possibly measure water with, that characteristic turns out to be required to be exactly, or almost exactly, as it is for complex life on this earth to be possible. No other liquid in the universe comes anywhere near matching water in its fitness for life (Denton: Nature’s Destiny).

    Here is a more complete list of the many ‘anomalous’ life enabling properties of water:

    Multiple ‘anomalous’ life enabling properties of water
    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

    Water’s remarkable capabilities – December 2010 – Peer Reviewed
    Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. … Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42211.html

    In fact, when looking at the ‘quantum forces’ of water, researchers found that ‘WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge’.

    Water’s quantum weirdness makes life possible – October 2011
    Excerpt: WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.,,, They found that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds were slightly longer than the deuterium-oxygen ones, which is what you would expect if quantum uncertainty was affecting water’s structure. “No one has ever really measured that before,” says Benmore.
    We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....sible.html

    In fact, water clearly appears to be brilliantly designed, on a ‘knife’s edge’ with protein folding in mind. In other words, water clearly appears to be designed on a ‘knife’s edge’ with biological life in mind in particular

    Water Is ‘Designer Fluid’ That Helps Proteins Change Shape – 2008
    Excerpt: “When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....113314.htm

    Scientists glimpse why life can’t happen without water – June 20, 2016
    Water molecules control protein motion, study finds
    Excerpt: Water molecules typically flow around each other at picosecond speeds, while proteins fold at nanosecond speeds–1,000 times slower. Previously, Zhong’s group demonstrated that water molecules slow down when they encounter a protein. Water molecules are still moving 100 times faster than a protein when they connect with it, however.
    In the new study, the researchers were able to determine that the water molecules directly touched the protein’s “side chains,” the portions of the protein molecule that bind and unbind with each other to enable folding and function. The researchers were also able to note the timing of movement in the molecules.
    Computer simulations at the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC) helped the researchers visualize what was going on: where the water moved a certain way, the protein folded nanoseconds later, as if the water molecules were nudging the protein into shape.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620160214.htm

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Supplemental notes:

    “If the earth were slightly larger, it of course would have slightly larger gravity, which has interesting implications. It’s not just that a person who weighs 150 pounds would weigh more. It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die. More to the point, we would have never come into existence in the first place.,,,
    On the other hand, if earth were just a tiny bit smaller and had a bit less gravity, water vapor, which has a molecular weight of 18, would not stay down here close to the planet’s surface but would instead dissipate into the planets atmosphere. Obviously, without water we could not exist.”
    Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 38-39

    The Cold Trap: How It Works – Michael Denton – May 10, 2014
    Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,,
    ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,,
    Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85441.html

    Verse:

    Job 36:27-28
    “He draws up the drops of water,
    which distill as rain to the streams;
    the clouds pour down their moisture
    and abundant showers fall on mankind.

  3. 3
    Sebestyen says:

    @rvb8: You went full retard, man. Never go full retard.

  4. 4

    My remarks here contain comments I’ve made on a book written and promoted for use by school teachers that mocks features of the human body that the author considers to be proof-examples of  why Darwinian evolution proves life arose through a long series of Natural Selection of random mutations.

    The book is “Not-so-Intelligent Designer”
    _________________
    I must beg to differ on Dr. Hafers and the Glenn Branch (of NCSE) view of this so called “Not-so-Intelligent Designer.” 

    What she sees as “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” many see as an elegant and quite magnificent design with an amazing and far ranging menu of capabilities.

    Let me suggest an exercise that the doctor, Mr. Branch, and others can easily accomplish, and I believe you may see my point.

    Take an evening out and partake in one of those wonderful choral and orchestra performances taking place all around the world at any given time – I would recommend Handel’s Messiah for this exercise.

    As you are watching and listing to this amazing musical performance I would like you to notice and watch a number of things very carefully.

    First the hands – the hands and body motions of the conductor, as well as his facial expressions and body movements as he leads the choir and orchestra through this magnificent musical piece.

    Continuing with the hands — watch the hands, and in particular the fingers of the orchestra members as they travel across the various instruments – the sting section, the brass section, the woodwinds — the piano. Watch carefully as their hands precisely match the direction given by the conductor. Watch as the fingers subtly, and at times strongly tease the music from their instruments.
    And note the various musical instruments — envisioned, designed and created by many beautifully designed and created hands and fingers.

    Next the choral voices – listen as these beautiful voices blend together perfectly with the orchestra, and watch the faces and mouths as they blend perfectly with the hands of the conductor and with the orchestra.

    Next listen and pay attention to your own reaction as message of the words and music bring excitement and inspiration into your heart and soul.

    As you leave the concert hall, take time to look at the building and its architecture and artistry. Again, the hands, arms, legs and mind of those artisans designed those arches, paintings and sculptures you admire so much.

    And when you get back home in bed, ponder over the creation of the musical score of the “Messiah.” Imagine Handel hovering over his desk and the paper taking on lines and musical symbols – and words. Imagine him going back and forth over that manuscript as he goes to and from the scriptures that are inspiring him. Imagine the music that is building inside his head as he creates this masterpiece.

    No – the human body is not the “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” but is something far more splendid and wonderful.
     
    _________________

    Next I would suggest a couple of sporting events for Dr. Hafers and Glenn Branch.

    First to a major league baseball game where they can witness the flawless execution of a double play. Beginning with the pitcher placing the ball across home plate at 90+ mph. We then see the batter follow that fast moving and curving baseball with his eyes, calculating where it will be as it passes into the strike zone where he can then attempt to hit it with his well hand/eye coordinated swing. Then we see the shortstop field the fast moving ball after anticipating and calculating where it will enter his glove. He then shovels it off to the second baseman who tags the runner out while leaping over the runner, and then a quick and precise throw to the first baseman who steps on first base for the second out of the double play.

    Next we go to an NBA basketball game where we witness the continual back and forth of finely tuned, trained and coordinated athletes showcasing example after example of what these well designed machines are capable of.

    Next we are off to an NFL football game where we witness precision in the well designed human body of a quarterback throwing the football with precise accuracy to a fast moving and maneuvering receiver who stretches his body out to execute a fingertip catch as he passes the goal line for a touchdown.

    No – the human body is not the “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” but is something far more splendid and wonderful.

    Next we travel into the applied biological science of medicine and medical research and invite teachers and Mr. Branch to read and study the extensive articles that a Dr. Howard Glicksman has compiled on the intricacies and design of many aspects of the human body. We see this compilation of science reporting at —

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/c.....signed_bo/

    This series contains at least a half dozen articles on blood pressure alone, and how it is controlled within the human body.

    Note that this science reporting by Dr. Glicksman is seen in the Discovery Institute web site http://www.evolutionnews.org – an ID site – and not on the pages of the National Center for Science Education. I have been following the NCSE site as well as the Discovery site and others for years now, and what I find is that good science reporting like I describe above is found often and on a regular basis there, whereas seldom – approaching never – is an any science reported by NCSE. I find that very interesting and troubling, and thus would offer a caution to teachers to view NCSE with a great deal of skepticism, and especially this book which is little more than a hit piece on those of us who differ with the Atheistic stance and mission of NCSE.

    No – the human body is not the “quirks and kinks, the makeshift solutions and haywire failures, of human biology,” but is something far more splendid and wonderful.

  5. 5
    J-Mac says:

    The “bad design argument” as proof that God/ID doesn’t exist is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person or even a child believes that “bad design” = no designer. If anything it is proof for existence of a designer who for unknown reasons allowed something to appear to be imperfect, or deteriorate into an imperfect state.

    Just because you don’t know WHY something was design in certain way or was allowed to happen by the designer doesn’t prove that there was no thought or mind behind it…

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Excellent point, J-Mac!

    -Q

  7. 7
    OldArmy94 says:

    From Wikipedia:

    The Christmas Bullet, aka Cantilever Aero Bullet, is commonly believed by many to be the worst airplane ever. The only two flying prototypes crashed on their first flights, killing both test pilots.

    I quote from the article, “The design had a serious flaw in that it lacked any kind of struts or braces for the wings, with Christmas’ insisting that they should be flexible. Control of the aircraft was meant to be achieved by wing warping to its flying surfaces.”

    That second word in the sentence above tells the story. It’s completely uncontroversial to say this flying deathtrap was designed, yet, why do atheists have such a hard time admitting the human body was designed, supposed flaws and all?

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    Had we remained in Eden, none of this would have been an issue at all.
    But we wanted to do it the way Frank Sinatra did it.
    Too late now.
    However, deep within us there is a strong longing for being there. Because we were made in Imago Dei.
    Fortunately, God Himself has provided the Way for us to get back to where we once belonged.
    Don’t miss it. Run to it now, while it’s available in this age of Grace. Tomorrow it might be too late.
    Think about it. Seriously.
    God loves you.

  9. 9

    Dionisio @ 8: Excellent comment. Thank you!

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    trivia:

    The average adult human body is 50-65% water, averaging around 57-60%. The percentage of water in infants is much higher, typically around 75-78% water, dropping to 65% by one year of age. Body composition varies according to gender and fitness level, because fatty tissue contains less water than lean tissue.

    About 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is water-covered,

    There was a 2015 Super Bowl commercial quoting John F Kennedy saying that it is a ‘fact’ we came from the sea because the salt content of our blood exactly matched the salt content of the sea.

    Carnival Corporation – Come Back To The Sea – Super Bowl XLIX Commercial
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOzZNLW7r78

    Well, that Darwinian belief turns out to be a ‘hoary old myth’ with no connection to reality:

    (Debunking) The myth that the concentration of salts in our blood plasma matches that of sea water – February 12, 2015
    Excerpt: (Debunking) the hoary old myth that the ionic composition of blood plasma matches that of seawater, which is supposed to “prove” that our ancestors came from the sea.,,,
    The percentage of the human body which is made up of water actually varies from 50 to 78%, being about 75-78% in infants, 60% in men and 55% in women, so Vice-President Al Gore’s figure of 71% is in the right ball park. But his assertion that our blood “contains roughly the same percentage of salt as the ocean” is flat-out false.,,, it was shown to be false as far back as 1926.,,,
    Here are the concentrations of Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+ and Cl- ions, measured in mM, in fresh water (average for N. America): 0.39, 0.04, 0.52, 0.21 and 0.23, respectively. Here are the concentrations in a terrestrial vertebrate (Homo): 142, 4, 5, 2 and 104. Here are the concentrations in average sea water: 470, 10, 10, 54 and 548. (Source: Harris, L. 1996. Concepts in zoology, 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins, p. 276.) Not much of a correlation, is there?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    OldArmy94 @7,

    Any engineer will tell you that any design is a network of compromises and tradeoffs.

    Bornagain77 @10,

    The myth that our blood composition (musta) matched that of ancient seawater was perpetuated by the 1957 evolution cartoon, Hemo the Magnificent.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFlTrYasFTw at 28:00.

    By the way, “seawater” is a single word, not two words. 😉

    -Q

  12. 12
    Eric Anderson says:

    Querius @11:

    Any engineer will tell you that any design is a network of compromises and tradeoffs.

    Exactly.

    And not once has any materialist Darwinist proponent ever offered anything even close to an engineering-quality analysis of those compromises and tradeoffs. Not once have they ever offered any sound engineering basis for why an alleged bad design in biology is in fact bad design. Never have they proposed an alternative design that is objectively better.

    All we get are sophomoric assumptions and vague complaints — like a child stomping her foot and pouting, “Well, I just don’t like it!”

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    I suggest the people who make these bad design arguments first make and implement then demonstrate that they can do a superior example. Designs normally embrace priorities, compromises [aka “trade-offs”], and subtle balances leading to a delicate interconnexion of even seemingly unrelated things, so before dismissing something as bad design, demonstrate superior design. Also, badness and goodness are teleological, so kindly document the intent of the allegedly incompetent designer, that led him to a bad compromise. KF

  14. 14

    In order to assess whether or not any particular design is good or bad, one must know all of the parameters and goals involved. “Bad design” is nothing more than a baseless narrative atheists use as comforting reinforcement.

  15. 15
    bb says:

    Querius @11,

    I like how the writer character in Hemo presents a “magic screen”, then goes into a defense of science and mockery of a belief in magic. The scientist then later points to the “mystical origins of life.” Is this how so many come to accept contradictions without blinking?

  16. 16
    mike1962 says:

    rvb8: God’s wonderful design is a nightmare of waste: 70% water

    The ocean currents are a very complex system that very effectively regulates the climate, while providing an environment for many and varied life forms.

    http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/climate.html

    I’m wondering if rvb8 could design something better.

  17. 17
    bb says:

    “Bad design” is nothing more than a baseless narrative atheists use as comforting reinforcement.

    I might even add that it is a baseless accusation against God. IOW: “If God exists, there is bad design, so He’s evil and I don’t want anything to do with Him. But He doesn’t, because there is bad design and He wouldn’t do such a thing.” Am I wrong to call this circular?

    2 “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
    He who argues with God, let him answer it.”
    […]
    7 “Dress for action like a man;
    I will question you, and you make it known to me.
    8 Will you even put me in the wrong?
    Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?

    9 Have you an arm like God,
    and can you thunder with a voice like his?

    -Job 40

    Let the one that claims “bad design” create something better to demonstrate his superiority.

  18. 18
    bb says:

    A better way to phrase my last line in 17 is:
    “Let the one that claims ‘bad design’ create something better to demonstrate it is indeed so.”

  19. 19
    john_a_designer says:

    Here I something I wrote a few weeks ago that I think fits very well with the discussion we are having on this thread.

    One of the arguments that Darwinist’s often give in favor of their world view is that an intelligent designer, if he really existed, wouldn’t have designed it that way. (It= us, animals, the whole world etc.) Then they’ll give an example like the eye’s so called backwards wiring.

    As a real life (now retired) designer I have given a lot of thought how I would reverse engineer some of the designs we find in nature. To be honest with you the complexity is staggering, if not mind numbing. But if you think you can do better than original designer tell me how. I’m all ears. However, if all you have is the empty assertion, “well he somehow could have done it better,” as an explanation, save your breath. Scientific and technological explanations try to answer the how questions. If you can’t answer those you don’t know anything– nobody does.

    For one example, consider that complexity of walking and manual dexterity; something that is essential to human survival and flourishing. In 2015 The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) sponsored a robot challenge, where teams of engineers introduced their android robots into competition with each other. Here is a brief video about the event:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P9geWwi9e0

    One of the advantages of developing even a semi-autonomous android robot is that much of damage of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster* could have been mitigated if we had a robot capable of walking like a human technician into a highly radioactive and unsafe environment and carrying out simple manual tasks such as turning valve. The video makes it clear we are no way close to that capability.

    Last year (2015) I ran across a wonderful version of the Nutcracker on Youtube. It’s a video from a Dec. 2012 performance of the ballet at the Mariinsky Theatre (yes that’s the correct spelling) in St. Petersburg, Russia. This is the very same theater, which has been very lovingly preserved, where the Nutcracker made its original debut in 1892. Please take a look at it. It is absolutely beautiful. The videography is stunning! The costumes, sets and performances are as perfect as is humanly possible.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtLoaMfinbU

    Think of the technical challenges that would be required to recreate this ballet using only android robots– or even designing and making android robots to play the parts of the android robots, which are part of the story. Again, it is staggers the mind…

    Isn’t it silly, if not arrogant, for humans to claim that the designs we find in nature are poorly designed or suboptimal, when we have no clue how to imitate and replicate the designs we find in nature? Oh sure we can build a motorcycle that can outperform (beat) Usain Bolt in the 100 meters. But can the motorcycle play soccer? Climb a ladder or a sheer cliff? Go swimming or scuba diving… etc. In other words, we have no clue how to design a machine that is capable of multitasking the way a human can multitask. Furthermore, no one knows how to design a machine that can actually think for itself or experience having fun or a sense of accomplishment. But that’s a whole other discussion.

    *Footnote: In March 2011 damage from an earth quake and tsunami caused the core of one of Japan’s nuclear reactors to begin to melt down.

  20. 20

    john_a_designer @19

    Excellent points John. We seem to be on the same wave link — see my remarks @4

  21. 21
    bb says:

    Thanks for your post JAD. Even our best technology is incredibly primitive when compared to what we see in biology. No one refers to it with that oft-repeated word “kluge”, which is always meaningless and cheap when used to deny that living components are designed systems. I would like to see a crowd of scientists cheer in amazement, like they did in the DARPA video over a robot climbing a few stairs, when they watch a toddler get on his feet and walk to mommy for the first time and see the mother grab, hold and even lift the toddler with the perfect combination of firm strength, enough to lift the shifting weight, and softness, so as not to damage the child.

    As a hobbyist, I’ve built a few robots and realize how incredibly difficult it is to imitate even the most basic of biological movement that we take for granted. Especially autonomously.

  22. 22
    rvb8 says:

    Wow, that’s a lot of refutation for a short post.

    Paraphrasing: ‘If we don’t understand the design it does not mean bad design.’ The appendix evolved to digest plant and seed material we no longer can digest; useless! Oh, and the, ‘it is a repository for good bacteria should an infection wipe out our stomach’s good bacteria’, doesn’t work as that is not its evolved function that is ancillary.

    What about the absurd, hurricane in a junkyard ID argument against evolution. Might I point out that there are no redundent parts on planes and that planes also went through a trial and error form of manmade evolution themselves. Man has removed the redundent parts and no part of a modern plane has no purpose.

    I can not refute all that was written here, but others have done a far better job than me; by a long long way. Suffice to say if the ocean is necessary to calibrate the climate (and it is), then perhaps God should have made the earth 80% ocean so it too could do a better job. All those extreme weather events point to a lack of enough regulating ocean, perhaps.

    Space is big, I mean really big. Now maybe God does have a reason for making it so fantastically inconceivably big, but none spring to mind. In Carl Sagan’s book on his Gifford lectures there is a series of photos in Chapter 1, look them up. They show the incomprehensible (to humnans) scale of the universe. I often think IDers hate these kinds of photographs produced by various worldwide space agencies, as they point to one, and only one rather unnerving conclusion; ‘Boy that’s big, what the hell for?’

    I’m sure you will reply as above, ‘no one can know the mind of God’, ”could you do better rvb8?’, a particularly absurd red haring, ‘No! I couldn’t!’ ‘The design will be revealed’, etc.

    To me all this may be true, but the evidence we have todate doesn’t in the slightest support that assertion. Todate the evidence supports the notion that if there is a supreme being, S/He, It, has done a poor job on our bodies, the planet, and the universe.

    The Bad Design argument, as more evidence is uncovered will only strengthen, as the purposelessness of Nature is revealed.

    All of this in no way argues against my Humanist credentials. I love life and believe justice, education, and good health care should be mandatory on this planet. I strongly support Free Speech, and believe the privacy of the home, and what you do there (legally) are sacrosanct. I also believe modern western culture has succeeded best at achieving these goals, and Theocracies around the planet fail, because they are theocracies.

  23. 23
    Eric Anderson says:

    ba77, quoting from Eric Metaxas:

    If the earth were slightly larger, it of course would have slightly larger gravity, which has interesting implications. It’s not just that a person who weighs 150 pounds would weigh more. It’s that if the earth had slightly more gravity than it now has, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen, respectfully, would remain close to our surface. Since we cannot breathe methane and ammonia, which are toxic, we would die. More to the point, we would have never come into existence in the first place.,,,
    On the other hand, if earth were just a tiny bit smaller and had a bit less gravity, water vapor, which has a molecular weight of 18, would not stay down here close to the planet’s surface but would instead dissipate into the planets atmosphere. Obviously, without water we could not exist.

    There is a little bit of unclarity in this quote, but I think I understand his point. The issue presumably isn’t so much about size as about mass and distance — specifically, about the force of gravity at the surface, regardless of the size of the planet.

    In any event, do you happen to have handy more specific information about the required range of gravity at the surface that could (a) hold water vapor, while (b) allowing ammonia and methane to dissipate?

    Also, if the range is sufficiently narrow, what implications might this have for some of the futuristic human colonization plans, such as terraforming Mars?

    I’d be surprised if the terraforming plans haven’t taken into account the required gravity for a particular atmosphere, but who knows?

    Anyway, interesting idea. Just wanting to pursue it a bit . . .

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Eric Anderson, Metaxas referenced Hugh Ross.

    Hugh Ross has (at least) these two papers (with references at the end of the papers):

    Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth – 2004 June Update
    by Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: surface gravity (escape velocity)
    if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane
    if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water
    http://www.meaningfulscience.c.....ghRoss.pdf

    And here:

    Linked from “Appendix C” in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is

    Part 3. Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms
    Excerpt: surface gravity (escape velocity) .001
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf

    Sorry Eric, don’t have time to dig out the specific references out of the hundreds of references at the end of the paper.

  25. 25
    mw says:

    Rvb8: “Space is big, I mean really big. Now maybe God does have a reason for making it so fantastically inconceivably big, but none spring to mind.”
    ________________________________________________________________
    Hello rvb8. You or I really have no idea how big space is, you seem to have put a limit to something we do not fully understand.

    It would seem to me, space and time are aspects of the essence of God, eternal, existing from all eternity in some form, related to our time-space, but in eternal time and space. Does not the essence of God exist in an infinite space and eternal time? To my understanding, there are not two types of space. Space is space. In our case, from the beginning, a created encapsulated space from out of a timeless space which God cast into the vaults of heaven.

    Until we can answer those fundamentals, including how God can exist in a timeless zone, and intercede in our time zone, we will not understand that mystery of God; but then we have no need to.

    That “none springs to your mind,” is because you/we do not have the real power and mind of God.

    You say: “I’m sure you will reply as above, ‘no one can know the mind of God’, “could you do better rvb8?’, a particularly absurd red haring (sic), ‘No! I couldn’t!’ ‘The design will be revealed’, etc.”

    A red herring? Or just an “absurd” excuse not even to attempt to answer such a question?

    Well, be a sport, have a theoretical go at creating a very good creation. Time no object, either long age order short, but your earthly creation may centre on humanity and your heavenly creation may allow for higher intelligence. Your creation may include free will to choose. To save your creation you must be ready to be rejected and trampled on. You can include hell or not. And you may need to create a space for eternal reprobates’.

    In your mind, is seems, God has done a poor job, therefore “bad design” is better and above God.

    Wait a minute, bad design is a god, for you did not ‘evolve’ yourself; but now theoretically stuck forever in a bad accidental purposeless evolution, and at the end a date with a purposeless meaningless death.

    Happy days, God has failed. The Big Bang and Darwinism has eclipsed God. No judgement. Better on our own.

    At least you do not sit on the fence, rvb8, in that case, perhaps God may do something about it (Rev 3:16): heaven forbid!

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Eric: here is another reference:

    A Stable Atmosphere: Another Reason Our Planet Is Special – Daniel Bakken – January 20, 2015
    Excerpt: There are many processes that keep Earth’s environment habitable, “which [in] the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal.”3 The evolution of an atmosphere through gas loss to outer space is one. This is primarily dependent on the planet’s gravity holding the gasses in the atmosphere, and the temperature at the outer edge, where gasses can escape if they have enough kinetic energy.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92851.html

    On the probability of habitable planets.- 2013
    Excerpt section 4: Staying in the habitable zone is obviously not sufficient for a planet to continuously maintain liquid water on its surface: it must have an atmosphere which keeps the surface pressure and the surface temperature (through its greenhouse effect) in the right range, for billions of years. However, the processes which controls the atmospheric evolution on a planet are still poorly known. This is the major source of uncertainty regarding the probability of habitable planets.
    Below I briefly discuss two examples of processes (among many others) for which the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0113.pdf

    Of related interest: It should be noted that there are a wide variety of atmospheres possible for Planets even though their masses may be similar. For instance, Venus, although being fairly close to earth in terms of mass, radius and density,,,

    Venus – Earth
    Mass 4.87 x 1024 kg – 5.98 x 1024 kg
    Radius 6052 km – 6378 km
    Density 5250 kg/m3 – 5520 kg/m3
    http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit.....d_to_Earth

    Venus, although being fairly close to earth in terms of mass, radius and density, has a drastically different atmosphere:

    Venus’ Atmosphere:
    Surface observations of Venus have been difficult in the past, due to its extremely dense atmosphere, which is composed primarily of carbon dioxide with a small amount of nitrogen. At 92 bar (9.2 MPa), the atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth’s atmosphere and the pressure at the planet’s surface is about 92 times that at Earth’s surface.

    Venus is also the hottest planet in our Solar System, with a mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F). This is due to the CO²-rich atmosphere which, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System. Above the dense CO² layer, thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets scatter about 90% of the sunlight back into space.

    Another common phenomena is Venus’ strong winds, which reach speeds of up to 85 m/s (300 km/h; 186.4 mph) at the cloud tops and circle the planet every four to five Earth days. At this speed, these winds move up to 60 times the speed of the planet’s rotation, whereas Earth’s fastest winds are only 10-20% of the planet’s rotational speed.
    http://www.universetoday.com/3.....e-planets/

    And indeed, a wider variety of atmospheres and chemical compositions for other planets are being found than was originally expected:

    Rains On Different Worlds – info graphic (sulfuric acid rain, glass rain, diamond rain, iron rain, methane rain)
    http://tehgeektive.com/wp-cont.....lanets.jpg

    Molten glass files: Blue alien planet is NOT like Earth – Nov. 3, 2016
    Excerpt: And then there’s the weather. The winds on HD 189733b (which lies about 63 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Vulpecula) blow at up to 5,400 mph (8,700 km/h) — about seven times the speed of sound. And if that’s not crazy enough for you, scientists think the rain on this world is made not of water, but of molten glass.
    per – Uncommon Descent

    Compositions of Extrasolar Planets – July 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions.
    http://www.reasons.org/composi.....ar-planets

    Our ‘translucent’ life permitting atmosphere truly is remarkable. I would even go so far to say that our life permitting atmosphere is ‘miraculous’.

    Visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the magnetic belt and the earth’s atmosphere. The tiny amount of harmful UV radiation, which is not visible light, allowed to filter through the atmosphere is needed to keep various populations of single cell bacteria from over-populating the world (Ross; reasons.org). The size of light’s wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also seem to be tailor-made for each other. This “tailor-made fit” allows photosynthesis, the miracle of sight, and many other things that are necessary for human life. These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also strongly appears to be designed to be of optimal biological utility (Denton; Nature’s Destiny).

    Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) – video (2016)
    https://youtu.be/NIwZqDkrj9I

    The ” just right ” relationship of the light spectrum and photosynthesis
    Excerpt: The American astronomer George Greenstein discusses this in The Symbiotic Universe, p 96:
    Chlorophyll is the molecule that accomplishes photosynthesis… The mechanism of photosynthesis is initiated by the absorption of sunlight by a chlorophyll molecule. But in order for this to occur, the light must be of the right color. Light of the wrong color won’t do the trick.
    A good analogy is that of a television set. In order for the set to receive a given channel it must be tuned to that channel; tune it differently and the reception will not occur. It is the same with photosynthesis, the Sun functioning as the transmitter in the analogy and the chlorophyll molecule as the receiving TV set. If the molecule and the Sun are not tuned to each other-tuned in the sense of colour- photosynthesis will not occur. As it turns out, the sun’s color is just right.
    One might think that a certain adaptation has been at work here: the adaptation of plant life to the properties of sunlight. After all, if the Sun were a different temperature could not some other molecule, tuned to absorb light of a different colour, take the place of chlorophyll? Remarkably enough the answer is no, for within broad limits all molecules absorb light of similar colours. The absorption of light is accomplished by the excitation of electrons in molecules to higher energy states, and (are) the same no matter what molecule you are discussing. Furthermore, light is composed of photons, packets of energy and photons of the wrong energy simply can not be absorbed… As things stand in reality, there is a good fit between the physics of stars and that of molecules. Failing this fit, however, life would have been impossible.
    The harmony between stellar and molecular physics that Greenstein refers to is a harmony too extraordinary ever to be explained by chance. There was only one chance in 10^25 of the Sun’s providing just the right kind of light necessary for us and that there should be molecules in our world that are capable of using that light. This perfect harmony is unquestionably proof of Intelligent Design.
    http://elshamah.heavenforum.or.....osynthesis

    William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013
    Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …
    In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....an-we.html

    Hope that helped clarify the subject a bit Eric.

  27. 27
  28. 28
    Origenes says:

    Eric Anderson: The attempts to claim poor design in biology or in the cosmos have an extremely terrible track record. Such arguments are inevitably based on the twin pillars of ignorance and pride.

    History repeats itself:

    Rvb8: The appendix evolved to digest plant and seed material we no longer can digest; useless!

    The dietary hypothesis has been recently debunked by new research:

    Looking at ecological factors, such as diet, climate, how social a species is, and where it lives, they were able to reject several previously proposed hypotheses that have attempted to link the appendix to dietary or environmental factors. [source: sciencedaily.com]

    Rvb8: Oh, and the, ‘it is a repository for good bacteria should an infection wipe out our stomach’s good bacteria’, doesn’t work as that is not its evolved function that is ancillary.

    If you are trying to say that the appendix was not intended as an immune organ, then you are wrong again:

    Instead, they found that species with an appendix have higher average concentrations of lymphoid (immune) tissue in the cecum. This finding suggests that the appendix may play an important role as a secondary immune organ.

    [source: sciencedaily.com ; paper ]

  29. 29
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is the basic argument I was trying to make above @ 19:

    If someone argues that something in nature is poorly designed he has the burden of proof to demonstrate how he (or anyone else) could design it better.

    He is unable to demonstrate how he could design it better.

    Therefore, his argument that what we have found in nature is poorly designed is not logically valid or supported.

    This argument has the logical from of modus tollens:

    If p then q

    Not q

    Therefore, not p

    Baseless opinions based on one’s personal feelings or prejudices are not valid arguments and therefore prove nothing. In other words, who are you to say what is better based on your personal subjective opinions? Who are you to set a standard for everyone else?

    Any objective standard of good or bad design must be based facts and reason not personal opinion, beliefs and prejudices.

    However, even if we do find something in nature that appears to be poorly designed it does not necessarily follow that it was not intelligently designed. Humans make and build things that are poorly designed but poorly designed doesn’t mean that they weren’t designed.

    Take for example the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that was destroyed in a wind storm in 1940:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec

    There is no doubt that it was poorly designed. Nevertheless, IT WAS DESIGNED.

  30. 30
    asauber says:

    And then there’s this:

    People who make Bad Design arguments are making thinly veiled theological statements. An Atheist can’t make theological statements (what God would or wouldn’t do) about what they hold to be an impossibility (God).

    It’s a ploy to make God look bad, which is their real intention with Bad Design.

    (Added: In the world of Atheists there is no such thing as Design that could be Bad)

    Andrew

  31. 31
    john_a_designer says:

    I think a lot of atheists have bought into a theology which no traditional theist (at least Jew or Christian) believes in or would ever espouse. The Creator according to the Genesis account did not create a perfect world.

    9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

    Good is not perfect. Theists don’t claim that God created a perfect world. So, we shouldn’t be surprised if we look at the world, and the things that make up the world, and fail to find that they are not perfect. So to say that “it’s not perfect, therefore God did not create it,” is a fallacious strawman argument.

    Carl Sagan wrote:

    “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”

    Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

    Once again, notice (as I wrote on the other thread) that Sagan has no problem having a sense of awe and wonder even “reverence” because of “the magnificence of the Universe.” Why would the belief that the Creator is an eternal, transcendent mind make any difference?

    I also disagree with Sagan that theists have tried to keep God small. I have no doubt that young David watching over his father’s flocks of sheep at night was awe struck by the star filled sky. Indeed, that is what he said.

    In a Psalm 8 he wrote:

    When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
    the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
    what is man that you are mindful of him,
    and the son of man that you care for him?

    He marveled then at the immensity of the universe. I have no doubt he would have marveled even more if he knew what we living today know. After all I am a theist that is how I feel.

  32. 32
    J-Mac says:

    Rvb8,
    Here is one of my favourite examples of “bad design”-the immortal jellyfish…

    … The seaside town of Shirahama, in Japan, one man thinks he knows what holds the key to everlasting life: jellyfish.
    Shin Kubota is a professor at Kyoto University’s Seto Marine Biological Laboratory. He began studying the gelatinous sea creatures in 1979, and there’s one type with which he’s particularly preoccupied: the scarlet jellyfish.
    “They don’t die,” Kubota says, “they rejuvenate.” He adds that they are one of three jellyfish species in japan that are considered “immortal…

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/.....ting-life/

    Why do you think God/ID would create such a bad design?

    In theory, the rejuvenation process of the scarlet jellyfish can go indefinitelly making it immortal…

    Could you possibly do a better job in the designing the poor, suffering jellyfish?

    If you happened to be to be too busy to redesign the faulty sucker, maybe you can find an alternative explanation how the jellyfish badly design rejuvenation process came about and why…

    I’m all ears… 😉

  33. 33
    john_a_designer says:

    Correction on 31. The following should read:

    “Good is not perfect. Theists don’t claim that God created a perfect world. So, we shouldn’t be surprised if we look at the world, and the things that make up the world, and find that they are not perfect.”

    Because God is perfect it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything He creates is or must be perfect.

  34. 34
    john_a_designer says:

    Even though theists do not claim that God created a perfect world we do believe that there are unequivocal examples of God’s goodness revealed in His creation.

    Take a look at the first four minutes of this episode of Nature. I don’t know the back story but this cameraman’s encounter with a wild wolf pack is unbelievable, whatever the behind the scenes story is.

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature.....ode/14893/

  35. 35
    Eric Anderson says:

    Rvb8 @22:

    Wow, that’s a lot of refutation for a short post.

    Don’t be too flattered. It was your short post that started the thread, but the failed, illogical argument you put forth is a staple of materialistic thought. Indeed, the claim of suboptimal design is probably the most common argument against design generally, or against God specifically, that is put forth by materialist evolutionists and atheists. Darwin himself in The Origin relied primarily on this argument.

    Paraphrasing: ‘If we don’t understand the design it does not mean bad design.’

    Correct. This is a matter of simple logic. Yet, do you acknowledge this? Or will you just continue spouting unfounded claims about bad design? Neither you nor any other claimant on your side has ever put forth a sound analysis or detailed explanation of how a biological or cosmological system could have been objectively designed better.

    Furthermore, the bad design argument has a terrible track record. Will you, or any of your materialist colleagues, ever stand up and admit that you were wrong about the panda’s thumb, or the mammalian eye, or some of the other staples of the bad design line of thinking that have turned out to be wrong?

    More importantly, do you acknowledge the critical logical point that “bad design” (however subjectively defined) does not mean that there is no designer?

    This is absolutely key to any rational, logical understanding of the issues.

    —–

    What about the absurd, hurricane in a junkyard ID argument against evolution. Might I point out that there are no redundent parts on planes and that planes also went through a trial and error form of manmade evolution themselves. Man has removed the redundent parts and no part of a modern plane has no purpose.

    This is embarrassing. There are plenty of redundant parts on planes. It is designed that way. And redundancy does not mean “no purpose.” Furthermore, if you think that planes went through a trial and error process in the same sense that natural selection supposedly does, then you don’t have a clue how systems engineering works.

    Like the failed Berra’s Blunder, you can’t help but point to something that was in fact designed when trying to argue for how non-designed things come about. Why is this? Very simple. No purely natural process can produce complex, specified, integrated functionality. Thus, like Berra, the only examples you will ever be able to cite are those of known, real design. Then the examples are twisted in an attempt to show that the know, real design was somehow like non-design.

    Suffice to say if the ocean is necessary to calibrate the climate (and it is), then perhaps God should have made the earth 80% ocean so it too could do a better job. All those extreme weather events point to a lack of enough regulating ocean, perhaps.

    What?! You don’t have a clue what you are saying. You haven’t the slightest idea what or whether that would have any meaningful impact. Again, you are just spouting baseless accusations.

    To date the evidence supports the notion that if there is a supreme being, S/He, It, has done a poor job on our bodies, the planet, and the universe.

    You assert, yet again, without a shred of actual engineering analysis of the systems in question. I get the sense that you have very little engineering experience. Or perhaps your materialistic philosophy is just overwhelming any ability to rationally approach the issue.

    The Bad Design argument, as more evidence is uncovered will only strengthen, as the purposelessness of Nature is revealed.

    Yet you stand on the wrong side of the trajectory of the evidence. The bad design argument has enjoyed a terrible track record over the past century and half. Yet you still hitch your wagon to it? Furthermore, as we learn about new systems, whether in biology or in the cosmos, the only thing we can discover is more functionality, not less. Ten years or a hundred years from now we will not know about fewer complex, functionally-integrated systems. The only direction the arrow of knowledge can flow is toward more. You are standing on the wrong side, fighting uphill, striving toward less knowledge.

    All of this in no way argues against my Humanist credentials. I love life and believe justice, education, and good health care should be mandatory on this planet. I strongly support Free Speech, and believe the privacy of the home, and what you do there (legally) are sacrosanct.

    Thank you for mentioning this. I’ll leave it to others to discuss whether any of your sensibilities make sense in an undesigned, purposeless universe. But I am glad to see that you have at least some sensibilities that many of us could agree to broadly. There are important nuances that would be worth discussing and correcting/clarifying, but at least it is a start.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Eric, I just came across this recent article by Hugh Ross:

    The Known Habitable Zones (For a Planet) – Hugh Ross – December 2016
    Excerpt: in addition to the water habitable zone, there are seven other known habitable zones.
    1. Water habitable zone
    2. Ultraviolet habitable zone
    3. Photosynthetic habitable zone
    4. Ozone habitable zone
    5. Planetary rotation rate habitable zone
    6. Planetary obliquity habitable zone
    7. Tidal habitable zone
    8. Astrosphere habitable zone
    ,,, Typically, these zones do not overlap,,, A planet is a true candidate for habitability only if it simultaneously resides in all eight habitable zones. So far, the only known planet that dwells in all eight is Earth.,,,
    Now, a ninth habitable zone has been discovered—
    9. Electric wind habitable zone.6
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....-space.php

  37. 37
    john_a_designer says:

    Eric Anderson responding to rvb8,

    rvb8: “Paraphrasing: ‘If we don’t understand the design it does not mean bad design.’”

    Eric Anderson: “Correct. This is a matter of simple logic. Yet, do you acknowledge this? Or will you just continue spouting unfounded claims about bad design? Neither you nor any other claimant on your side has ever put forth a sound analysis or detailed explanation of how a biological or cosmological system could have been objectively designed better…”

    rvb8: “To date the evidence supports the notion that if there is a supreme being, S/He, It, has done a poor job on our bodies, the planet, and the universe.”

    Eric Anderson: “You assert, yet again, without a shred of actual engineering analysis of the systems in question. I get the sense that you have very little engineering experience. Or perhaps your materialistic philosophy is just overwhelming any ability to rationally approach the issue.”

    It appears to me that rvb8, as well as most of our other atheist interlocutors, don’t understand the first thing about basic logic or have a clue how to make a logical argument. Apparently they think that just stating their personal opinion and/or making a baseless assertions is equivalent to making an argument. Do they even understand the difference?

    But why should I even consider accepting their opinions and baseless assertions? I personally don’t accept non-arguments as arguments.

    I could speculate why they “reason” this way but I won’t. (They would probably be insulted.)

    However, there is a simple way that they could win the argument: Prove that atheistic naturalism is true.

    I have offered this challenge before…

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-623174

    But so far there have been no takers. Why is that? Most of our atheist interlocutors show up here posturing as self-appointed-defenders-of-science. Their world view, at least for those who admit they have a worldview, is supposedly based on science. At least that is how it is defined by naturalists themselves:

    Worldview Naturalism

    Naturalism… is a comprehensive, science-based worldview, premised on the idea that existence in all its dimensions and complexity is a single, natural realm, not split between the natural and the supernatural.

    http://www.naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism

    If the naturalist can use science to prove anything that is meaningful and true about the universe, life and human existence, shouldn’t they be able to prove that naturalism is true?

    If they can’t prove scientifically that atheistic-naturalism is true, why should I give any credence to what they are saying? Do they want me to accept it by faith? That would be bizarre, wouldn’t it?

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    JAD, of related interest to your post:

    Cogito; Ergo Deus Est
    Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead
    by Charles Edward White – Winter 2017
    Excerpt: Atheists, having strapped on the skis of physically caused thought, cannot stop anywhere on the mountain of rationality, but must descend into the valley of non-rationalism. But here they encounter a problem. If there is no criterion of rationality, how does one evaluate his thoughts? When John Nash, whose story is told in A Beautiful Mind, was overcome by phobias and obsessions, he thought his way back to health by rational therapy. He tested each thought by the outside standard of reason and thereby decided which thoughts to trust and which to dismiss.4 Atheists, however, have no outside standard.,,
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....us-est.php

  39. 39
  40. 40
    Eric Anderson says:

    kf, interesting how often in the Systems Engineering Handbook they talk about tradeoffs. There is a constant and pervasive need to analyze and make decisions regarding tradeoffs, whether we are talking about cost, complexity, safety, effectiveness, technical risk, and so on.

    This ties back nicely to the very concept of intelligence: to choose between contingent options.

    Much of the entire engineering process is dependent upon understanding the various parameters and then making a decision — an intelligently informed choice — about the tradeoffs.

    No purely natural process can perform this critical task. It cannot recognize, much less make an informed decision between, contingent alternatives.

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    EA, a LOT of engineering decision-making and the like is striking compromises. The classic is the iron triangle, where once a threshold of acceptable quality is there, we face issues of scope, costs and time — pick any two, pay for it with the third. Purpose, priorities, compromises, need for deep insight. KF

  42. 42
    Seversky says:

    I agree that appealing to bad design is a weak argument against the existence of God or a Designer. To know whether a design is good or bad you must first know what was the purpose in the mind of the designer. You must also know the means available to the designer for realizing his or her design.

    However, those same arguments cut both ways. We cannot appeal to examples of what we judge to be good design as evidence for a designer without knowing the purpose of the designer or their means.

    There is also the problem that design implies limitations. A designed world could be construed as evidence against an omnipotent creator like the Christian God. In one of his Three Essays on Religion, the 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued as follows:

    It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance—the need of employing means—is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. But if the employment of contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and skilful choice of contrivances? Can any wisdom be shown in the selection of means, when the means have no efficacy but what is given them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist. The evidences, therefore, of Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under limitations; that he was obliged to adapt himself to conditions independent of his will, and to attain his ends by such arrangements as those conditions admitted of.

    A further question is whether or not a necessary, perfect being such as the Christian God could or would create an imperfect, contingent world such as ours.

    Allowing that He could and that He does not act on a whim then we accept that our contingent, imperfect world, including all that we call evil therein, was created deliberately. We must also accept that we as flawed, imperfect even sinful beings were deliberately and knowingly thus created. In that case, by what standard of justice can we be held responsible and even punished for behaving in the way we were designed to behave? If Adam and Eve were created to have, amongst other things, the capacity for curiosity, how could an omniscient God have been surprised that they were tempted into trying the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Still less how could He, in justice, exile them from Eden or punish their descendants in perpetuity again for behaving how He designed them to behave?

    Since theists are so much better at rational argument than atheists, perhaps JAD can explain these matters.

  43. 43
    rvb8 says:

    Just to simplify the well presented point,

    If God is omniscient, He must have known His creation would sin.

    Therefore God created sin, and knew Adam would fall; he created Bad Design, and knew before hand it was a bad design.

    There is absolutely nothing in that creation myth that gives Adam any free will at all; all was pre-ordained in the original poor design.

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    red herring to switch the subject.

    RVB8:

    Piling on the evasion of the issue at stake, evidence of design, a process.

    BTW, Plantinga long since addressed the problem of evil in depth to the point where well-informed atheism advocates have backed away from it.

    As a first hint, by way of Boethius C 500 AD, in his Consolation of Philosophy (written while being under evidently unjust death sentence due to dirty court politics):

    If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?

    (For a skeletal outline of Plantinga, cf here. Notice, the order of virtue — starting with love — requires the order of freedom under moral government; the exact opposite of mechanical compulsion, mechanical or random blind forces and circumstances. So does the good of being capable of reason. So your challenge self-destructs — you must presume what you object to. And obviously, God wants our reasonable, responsible, rational, freely given service, while that same responsible rationality instructs us that things of value should be treated with due respect. So, your talking point that God makes moral evil/sin collapses. And more, but that diverts the thread even more.)

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I cannot but help noticing how for several weeks many objectors were “missing” on discussions of technical issues connected to the inference to design and when they show up they follow Darwin’s rhetorical lead of distractions down the road of the problem of evils.

    That tells us much about what is a key motive for atheism, it is largely anti-theism.

    Bridging back to topic, evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot even account for responsible rational freedom, so logic and math much less virtue.

    And of course, evidence of design, even allegedly bad design, is evidence of design.

    Before hearing further dysteleological arguments, let us see the issue of the systems engineering tradeoffs and balances seriously addressed by objectors. Show us empirically grounded cause to know that you are capable of designing a superior cosmos and building it. The same for cell based life and body plan level novel forms. Not to mention, viable ecosystems.

    In the meanwhile evidence of design stands as evidence of design, pointing to designers capable of devising and implementing such.

    And, a cumulative case is a whole that needs to be faced as a whole. A rope is often made up from short, weak fibres twisted to make strands and counter twisted to lock together as a coherent, stable, long, strong rope.

    And BTW, just handling DNA as a long twisted string, is a non-trivial issue, as anyone who has ever had to deal with a tangled fishing line will attest.

    Then, as Crick pointed out Mar 19, 1953, it contains TEXT. Thus, code, symbols and rules of meaning, thence, LANGUAGE, expressing algorithms. Objectors to design need to show cause that such things can and per empirical observation, come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity.

    KF

  45. 45
    Silver Asiatic says:

    rvb8

    Just to simplify the well presented point,

    You oversimplified and took some jumps in logic.

    If God is omniscient, He must have known His creation would sin.

    Therefore God created sin, and knew Adam would fall; he created Bad Design, and knew before hand it was a bad design.

    I remind you of St. Augustine’s classic phrase used within the Exultet which I’m sure you already know: “O felix culpa” — ““O Happy Fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”

    So, first – God did not and cannot create sin which is a deprivation of goodness and therefore impossible for him. He created the potentiality for sin in a contingent, dependent creation, which far from a bad design actually gives creatures far more glory, happiness and potential than a design that lacked the opportunity to merit.

    We only know redemption (and Our Redeemer) by having the need to be redeemed. And that is greatness, not badness in design.

  46. 46
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sev

    We must also accept that we as flawed, imperfect even sinful beings were deliberately and knowingly thus created. In that case, by what standard of justice can we be held responsible and even punished for behaving in the way we were designed to behave?

    Life on earth for each person is relatively short, certainly in comparison with eternity. There are boundaries in the temporal life, one of which is its shortness, but others of which are moral boundaries.

    As St. Paul teaches us – “run the race”. Or, in other words, play the game well. Like NFL football, (or European if you want), the field has boundaries. They deliberately created sidelines even knowing players would step over. So, why penalize players when knowing they would eventually go out of bounds? Because those are the limits of the action.

    If Adam and Eve were created to have, amongst other things, the capacity for curiosity, how could an omniscient God have been surprised that they were tempted into trying the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

    The omniscient God didn’t need to be surprised in order to give Adam and Eve freedom of choice. From the human perspective, the choice is free, not pre-determined. It’s on that basis that we merit reward for good actions and punishment for bad. Beyond that, we can learn things, achieve things and act for good purposes or bad (or act with purpose or with none).

    Still less how could He, in justice, exile them from Eden or punish their descendants in perpetuity again for behaving how He designed them to behave?

    While sin is a part of the human experience, so also is repentance and forgiveness. The person who sins can be redeemed towards the good — and make progress towards God by ever-increasing moral and spiritual perfection. We admire that when we see it in people and in ourselves when we do it.

    Since theists are so much better at rational argument than atheists, perhaps JAD can explain these matters.

    Nobody is saying that theists are somehow better but merely that atheism lacks a rational basis for any kind of argument. It’s an irrational construct. Some atheists openly admit that.

  47. 47
    Eric Anderson says:

    bb @21:

    I would like to see a crowd of scientists cheer in amazement, like they did in the DARPA video over a robot climbing a few stairs, when they watch a toddler get on his feet and walk to mommy for the first time and see the mother grab, hold and even lift the toddler with the perfect combination of firm strength, enough to lift the shifting weight, and softness, so as not to damage the child.

    Well said.

    Somehow when we actually have to do the engineering work we quickly become humbled by the incredibly knotty problems that have to be solved, grateful for the small successes that come after laborious effort, and more aware of the overall magnitude of the challenge.

    Teams of the best and the brightest working for decades to accomplish feats that we take for granted every day in biology. And yet in biology we are supposed to believe that all this engineering work came about through a long series of copying errors and the like.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    —–

    One of the great problems with the evolutionary storyline is that it makes a mockery of the actual work that is involved in engineering complex functional systems. Instead we just make up stories and make vague appeals to long periods of time and hypothetical things that might have happened in the distant hazy past, thereby fooling ourselves into thinking we have actually “explained” something.

    It isn’t just that the “explanation” is vague or incomplete. It is that it rests on a complete perversion of what we know and understand about how the world actually works.

    It isn’t just that the “explanation” is partial knowledge that will lead toward greater knowledge with more research and effort. In fact, it is worse than no knowledge. So much of the evolutionary story it is what I call “anti-knowledge” – it actually leads away from the truth. It is nonsense masquerading as truth. Rather than having learned something incomplete but useful, one is often worse off for even having been exposed to the idea.

  48. 48
    Eric Anderson says:

    Seversky @42:

    I agree that appealing to bad design is a weak argument against the existence of God or a Designer. To know whether a design is good or bad you must first know what was the purpose in the mind of the designer. You must also know the means available to the designer for realizing his or her design.

    Almost correct. No-one is requesting that anyone get in the mind of the designer. A reasonable, objective evaluation of the product can be done in the here and now. I, for one, would be very happy to see a single engineering-level analysis of a biological system and how it could be improved before someone starts claiming bad design. Instead what we get are juvenile assertions by evolutionists based on some superficial, cursory, knee-jerk evaluation of the system: things such as “the mammalian eye is wired backwards,” and the like.

    Then when serious people turn an engineering eye on the system and discover the system is actually quite ingenious, the evolutionist never issues a retraction or an apology. Worse, the blatantly false assertion of bad design just continues in the evolutionary literature and consciousness for decades – not because it is true, but because it is a convenient rhetorical tool.

    However, those same arguments cut both ways. We cannot appeal to examples of what we judge to be good design as evidence for a designer without knowing the purpose of the designer or their means.

    Not quite. You are conflating different issues. The question about whether there is a designer rests on whether there is design. Not on whether the design is “good” or “bad” according to some list of criteria we decide to impose.

    There is also the problem that design implies limitations.

    Nonsense, notwithstanding the eminent quote you provided. Design implies limitations? As opposed to what? If I want to create X and I create X, how is that a limitation?

    Furthermore, whether limitations exist for some particular designer is certainly not evidence against the existence of the designer. Again, the particular capabilities, identity, or “limitations” of a designer are second-order questions to whether a designer exists. Interesting as they may be in their own right, they can never address the central question of whether a designer exists in the first place.

    A further question is whether or not a necessary, perfect being such as the Christian God could or would create an imperfect, contingent world such as ours.

    Why in the world not? Indeed, the entire Judeo-Christian tradition asserts that he did – either directly or by allowance. We can debate whether or not the Judeo-Christian tradition is true or not, but the idea that we live in an imperfect world is certainly not in conflict with traditional theology.

    Allowing that He could and that He does not act on a whim then we accept that our contingent, imperfect world, including all that we call evil therein, was created deliberately. We must also accept that we as flawed, imperfect even sinful beings were deliberately and knowingly thus created. In that case, by what standard of justice can we be held responsible and even punished for behaving in the way we were designed to behave . . .

    I was going to give a flippant reply about the silliness of the question, because the very asking of the question implies a misunderstanding of traditional Judeo-Christian doctrine, as well as an ironic imposition of materialist thought on the same.

    However, this is actually a very important issue, so let’s take at least a high level look.

    In short, let us keep in mind that, under the Judeo-Christian doctrine, human beings have agency, willpower, the ability to act for themselves. God did not create automatons to act only as he programmed us, without any will. The automaton without willpower, ironically, is the strong materialist viewpoint espoused by Will Provine, Dawkins’ Selfish Gene, and others of like mind. That is precisely the opposite of the Judeo-Christian doctrine.

    Furthermore (and it is critical to come to grips with this — both logically and in one’s own personal experience), the Judeo-Christian doctrine suggests that we are capable of learning, growing, improving – indeed, we are commanded to do so. The entire point of our existence is not to just flow along without any problems, sunshine and flowers every day, but to work, struggle, learn, experience, overcome challenges, wrestle with our imperfections, love, grow, and stretch.

    I don’t know if you have any children, or perhaps nieces and nephews, but if so, you can appreciate the foregoing. The oft-repeated atheist cry against the challenges and difficulties and problems in the world is oh so similar to the complaints of a little child about why she has to go to school, or do her homework, or get to bed on time. It’s all so hard, and so mean, and so difficult.

    Yet a wise – and perfectly loving – parent would never keep their child protectively encompassed in a bubble of ease and luxury. Rather, it is precisely the wise parent who lovingly, but sufficiently firmly, makes the child go through the growing pains, even the skinned knees and the tears, knowing all the while that it is not the parent’s role to build a comfortable world for the child, but to build a child ready for the world.

    This is personal, this is profound, this is meaningful doctrine. It speaks to our heart. It matches up with our experience with our own children and loved ones. It is perfectly consistent and logical.

    The opposing position has no similar value. It is a “stuff happens” doctrine that asserts all is a big accident, all is happenstance, all is ultimately meaningless. Thankfully, only a small number of the most pathological ever actually adhere to the materialist doctrine. Most materialists are better than their own doctrine. They were created better than their own doctrine. Even if they haven’t yet applied the principles to humanity more broadly, at least for themselves and their own families they recognize and appreciate the importance of experiencing, overcoming challenges, learning, loving, growing, improving, becoming – the very things that are anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

  49. 49
    rvb8 says:

    Your third to last paragraph describes the childishness of atheists. However, it is not we that can not live without a celestial father! It is not we that are in constant fear of bringing down righteous (or more likely irrational) anger from a male God! It is not we who constantly look to the Father for advice and correction.

    Your metaphor of childish behaviour is correct, you only need to stand in front of a mirror for it to be accurate.

  50. 50
    Querius says:

    Spoken by a person who thinks God was stupid in creating the oceans and cannot come up with a cogent reason why a certain type of animal protein cannot be used to save starving people.

    No, I don’t think Atheists are necessarily childish. They just somehow reached a conclusion about God that would require them to be omniscient and omnipresent. They believe everything, including time and chance, could simply pop into existence out of non-existence, which would be a Miracle.

    Apparently, they think they’re infallible and stand in front of mirrors a lot. Why, I don’t know. Maybe it’s to distract them from the possibility that God might exist after all.

    Could there be a universe among the billions and billions in the multiverse where God does indeed exist? 😮

    -Q

  51. 51
    rvb8 says:

    I’m an atheist ‘Q’, but at the same time I know it is impossible for me to prove my acceptance of the position, that a God is an affront to nature; there may indeed exist a Supreme Creator, judging me as I sit here.

    I just find that idea to be unhelpful in understanding the natural world; I have made no secret of that here.

    I never knowingly mock religion, particularly religions beyond my culture, Hinduism, Taoism etc.

    This post was started when I was accused of making the ‘bad design’ argument in a different way. I said the wastefulness easily observable in the universe leads me to think it was not intelligently designed. There it is. I stick by that modification to an old argument, because looking at our planet, if indeed it was intelligently designed, you have to ask the question; ‘Why so many areas where we can’t live?’

    Perhaps there is a reason why God gave us so many spaces that are hostile to us, but it is unknowable to us. Science on the other hand gives a satisfying (because it answers our evolved curiosity) answer to these questions, and rather neatly.

  52. 52
    Dionisio says:

    God doesn’t need me or anybody to prove His existence.

    For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[b] to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    It doesn’t matter if y’all keep arguing until the end of this age of grace. But I pray that some among you will see the true Light and will believe. Tomorrow it might be too late for many.

    Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

  53. 53
    Dionisio says:

    Now, y’all may want to take a short break from your never-ending arguing and take a quick look at this:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03438.html

    Where did that complex complexity come from?

    🙂

  54. 54
    Eric Anderson says:

    rvb8 @49:

    Your third to last paragraph describes the childishness of atheists. However, it is not we that can not live without a celestial father! It is not we that are in constant fear of bringing down righteous (or more likely irrational) anger from a male God! It is not we who constantly look to the Father for advice and correction.

    Of course you don’t look for advice and correction. You assume you already know best.

    That is the deliciously ironic thing about the line of argumentation you have embarked on. You claim there is no God. And what is the support for your claim? Because you claim to know what God would be like and what God would do if God did exist. And because the world doesn’t match up to some childish set of expectations — peace and comfort for all; some subjective sense of perfection — you conclude that there must be no God.

    Then you go even a step further and assume that this non-existent God must be the only possible designer of life. Ergo, you conclude, there is no design in life and no designer.

    —–

    It’s easy to reach the conclusion you reached:

    A misunderstanding of traditional theistic doctrine about God, a naive set of expectations, a haughty attitude about what should have been created in your opinion, a flawed and cursory analysis of biological systems, and a conflation of the existence and identity of a designer.

    That’s all we need in order to conclude that life isn’t designed under the line of argumentation you have proposed.

    That’s what your argument rests on.

  55. 55
    Eric Anderson says:

    rvb8 @51:

    I stick by that modification to an old argument, because looking at our planet, if indeed it was intelligently designed, you have to ask the question; ‘Why so many areas where we can’t live?’

    Sorry, but that is a terrible question. We might as well ask why a designer would want us to live in every corner and crevice of a planet? Better yet, we might ask why we were designed to be so incredibly adaptable — being able to create tools and habitats and clothing to enable us to live far beyond our normal range and in hostile environments? Further, if we look at Earth’s position and extremely favorable environment (compared with other planets in our Solar System) we might ask why God would want to give us so many places to live?

    The entire exercise is nonsense. The fact that you dig in your heels on such an irrational question, and the fact that you think it is some profound inquiry that calls into question the existence of a creator, speaks volumes.

    Science on the other hand gives a satisfying (because it answers our evolved curiosity) answer to these questions, and rather neatly.

    If you are referring to a materialistic or evolutionary perspective as providing a satisfying answer, then that is simply untrue. The evolutionary “explanation” is nothing more substantive than, “Well, stuff happens, and this is where it ended up.” It is certainly not an answer. Worse, it masquerades as an answer to those who don’t think too closely about it, thus preventing deep and meaningful inquiry. Another example of the evolutionary paradigm acting as a science stopper.

    —–

    Look, I agree with you that if God were all powerful in the sense of being able to ignore the laws of physics and chemistry, and if he wanted to create a forever comfortable existence, and if he wanted us to easily access and live in every corner of the planet, and if he was able to do so — then the fact that the world isn’t that way might be a reasonable argument against God’s existence, or at least against his ability.

    But why on Earth you would have such a strange perception about what God is or should be like? It certainly doesn’t match up to the understanding of God presented in traditional theology, which you disdain so much. So you haven’t spent time to understand the theistic position. You must have pulled your unusual perception of God out of your own mind or perhaps from the equally-distorted atheist talking points we so often see online.

  56. 56
    Silver Asiatic says:

    rvb8

    there may indeed exist a Supreme Creator, judging me as I sit here.

    At least you’re open to the possibility. As the First Cause of all causes, the First Being of all subsequent being, I would think that would be your best answer thus far. A multiverse really won’t do it.

    Beyond that, not just judging you (seeing only negative) but sustaining and assisting you. In that view, there’s a lot to be grateful for and not just think about judgement.

  57. 57
    Dionisio says:

    Creatures don’t have to prove the existence of their Creator.

    This is kind of silly, but perhaps still within the topic?

    http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cb.....rs/C40.pdf

    The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Psalm 19:1

    The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
    there is none who does good. Psalm 14:1

    The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity;
    there is none who does good. Psalm 53:1

Leave a Reply