Disclaimer: This is not an attack on the existence of a god or on religion. It is a questioning of a method of supporting an argument that just uses because as its answer to debunking science. I wrote it in response to an article I read this morning. I posted the link in the comments section. Im pretty sure that headline isnt exactly scientifically sound.....the argument in the article says that the number of parameters needed for life has increased which reduces the number of possible locations that life could exist, therefore God designed life. But, if an all knowing all powerful God designed the entire universe for the purpose of creating life in his image, why would he/she/it only make it happen on one tiny planet in orbit around one star in a universe with uncountable planets and stars.? Im not saying there cant be a God or that there is a God. I do however want to note that you cant just say because as an argument. I, like everyone else cant prove either argument. However, there has to more to it than is provided in the Intelligent Design argument. Heres a good video that says what I dont have the room or words to say here. https://youtube/watch?v=z1xWikoa6Dc
Posted on: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:59:35 +0000