QUOTE(PLO @ Apr 26 2006, 07:24 PM) [snapback]1165026[/snapback]
weeeell is it as big as an assumption as saying it is all a coincdence?, i mean, the universe is a fine peice of engineering no matter what way you like at it.
The problem with this argument is that you have to assume a design exists in order to prove that it does. If there is no design, then there is no universal standard for what a "good" or "bad" universe might be like. For instance, it is often suggested that the earth must have been designed by a higher power, because only the earth has conditions just right for humans. This is nonsense because in the absense of a creator humans would have evolved to fit the conditions on the earth. Was earth designed to suit humans, or did humans develop because of what the earth is like? Clearly, this doesn't
refute the idea that the earth was designed by a higher power, but neither does it
support it. The same holds true for the universe. In the absense of a creator, life would evolve to fit whatever conditions were present. If the force of gravity were slightly greater than it is, or if the speed of light were slower, or if the electromagnetic force was weaker, then the universe would be a vastly different place and life as we know it probably could not exist. But this proves nothing. If conditions were different, then they would be different. The fact that human life exists as it does in no way demonstrates that there is any reason, order, or logic to the universe beyond simple natural laws.
Again, I must stress that this does not prove the universe was
not created. It simply fails to support the argument that it was.
-Pilgrim