Why a creator makes more sense.

Welcome!

What follows is the basic gist of why a creator seems more reasonable than a material non intelligent process that by natural process generated life. I am going to use the term “creator” to avoid any religious overtones. Actually, I don’t want religion to be any part of this. Please, just strait up science and reason. So, if you feel compelled to bring up religion, I’ll have to ignore it. I’d like feedback on any of these. The challenge being, if you respond please don’t just link me to a site. Be specific and tell me in strait forward language where you think I am wrong. I realize that no individual one of these confirms a creator in and of itself, but the culmination of all of them makes it quite reasonable to conclude. I am hoping by the end of it all, for there to be a mutual respect for each others position. Not all believers are dolts and not all atheists are pompous ass-holes. Also, I am just going to scratch the surface on these topics and will let the discussion itself go into the details as needed.

1. The Big Bang – To me this is significant because it indicates a creation. The universe hasn’t always been here. All time, matter and space started from a point of singularity. We all know about cause and effect. For any effect there must be a cause. This begs the question, what is your theory as an atheist as to what caused it.

2. Cosmic Inflation- In the blink of an eye, the universe expanded from its singularity to a space of billions of light years. As a matter of fact, for this to work it states that the expansion happened at a rate much faster than the known cosmic speed limit, the speed of light. If that doesn’t indicate a creation I don’t know what! It seems this is just another case of making the numbers work and not giving credence to the possibility of a creator. What naturally occurring mechanism do you feel could cause this?

3. The Fine Tuning of the Universe – This is significant to me because,…well we wouldn’t be here if the universe didn’t form the way it did. The counter argument to this is the anthropic principle. The issue I have with it is that it doesn’t address anything other than 1=1. Or it restates the obvious…Here we are, and thus it could’ve only happened this way.

Some examples of this fine-tuning are listed below: There are well over 100.

A. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.

B. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible.

C. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.

D. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible.

E. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons.

The only explanation you see to counter this is that there might be multiple universes. We’re just fortunate that our universe is the lucky one out of billions that has a spot where life could randomly come to be. Honestly, which makes more sense, that there is something behind this fine tuning or this silly multi-verse stuff?

4. Our Priveledged Planet – This term comes from a book of the same name. It is significant to know that our planet has many features that make it unique not only for life but for studying the universe itself.

Examples

A. We have a planet in a habitable zone. In other words, if we were 5% closer or farther from the sun we wouldn’t have an environment conducive to life.

B. We have a moon that is in the right spot to affect the tides of our oceans here on earth. This is important for many reasons. Stagnant water isn’t conducive to life, and the oceans trap and releases carbon and other elements that affect our environment and keep it habitable.

C. The tilt on our axis is important for our seasons to work and for life to develop.

D. We have a very rare atmosphere that allows for the possibility of carbon based life. The atmosphere also protects us from all of the harmful radiation that the sun gives off.

The earth’s electro magnetic field also puts a protective coat on us and protects us from harmful radiation.

E. Plate tectonics- enriches soils, regulates the planet's temperature, concentrates gold and other rare metals and maintains the sea's chemical balance.

F. Our sun is 400 times larger than our moon. The sun is 400 times farther away from us than the moon. Because of this when we have a solar eclipse, our moon perfectly covers our view of the sun. Not only is this fascinating to see, but it has given us some great information. Einstein was able to use this information to help develop his theory of relativity. We were also able to learn about red-shifts that show us the universe is expanding.

5. Origin of life – What part 4 shows is that we have a planet that can host life and how rare and unique it is. However, the ability to host life is just a drop in the bucket for life to actually come into existence. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.

No scientist can explain how these things originated fully formed.

1) Without DNA there is no self replication
2) Without self replication there is no natural selection
3) So one can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) we are trying to explain

Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn't have self replication.

The information came first. The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA?

In short - DNA had to precede self replication which had to precede even the possibility of natural selection, i.e. evolution.

It must be understood that not only do we have a very rare planet that can host life. It is even rarer that it would develop on its own. What is the probability that DNA assembled by chance in the first cell? It is postulated that the first cell would need at least three hundred genes to become a functioning organism capable of replication the statistical probability of assembling a single gene coding for one hundred amino acids by chance alone has been calculated to be something in the order of 1x10-¹⁹⁰ So the answer is No! The likelihood that a functional DNA chain appeared by chance is essentially zero. The probabilistic resources to generate the information content in DNA for the first self replicating cell "by chance" do not exist.

6. Complexity of life/Evolution –

The Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time because science presumes a natural cause and the only thing that could shoot it down is a better theory of how it was caused naturally. Since the theory is basically true on some of its levels, it has remained unchallenged.

So with evolution, the cell with no directions or guidance proceeded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.

It begs the question. Without instruction or guidance, how would it know what sight, hearing and flight are? It would need a slow steady set of mutations gradually building these complex parts. How did it know what it is making? Remember this is supposedly all done by random chance. But obviously it was written in its existing DNA code. Current observations of evolution only express what is already present in the DNA of its subject. Mutations are programmed.

Finally out of the billions of species that have lived on this planet coupled with
man’s almost identical DNA with chimps as our common ancestor. What happened to
we humans that made us so vastly more intelligent than the other chimps.

The assumptions mentioned above are in conflict with the laws of statistical probabilities. The large number of consecutive impossibilities that would be needed would be like four people drawing a perfect poker hand one hundred times in a row. After the second time you would be trying to figure out how they did it. By the third time, you’d realize something was behind it.

As a side note:

SETI has spent a lot of time and money searching for signs of intelligence in the universe. What it will accept as proof of intelligence is far less complex than

what evolutionary scientists will accept as proof of intelligence?

7. Interdependency/Symbiotic relationships - A symbiotic relationship is a relationship between two entities which is mutually beneficial for the participants of the relationship. Thus there is a positive-sum gain from cooperation. The bumblebee and the flower would be an example. The bumble bee extracts the flower's pollen for protein and its nectar for energy. The bumblebee, while collecting these sources, inadvertently brushes pollen from one flower to another to ensure the flower's reproduction process begins. The bumblebee needs the flower to survive, the flower needs the bumblebee to survive. These are positive sum relationships. Some other examples: The spider crab and the algae. Spider crabs live in shallow areas of the ocean floor, and greenish-brown algae lives on the crabs' backs, making the crabs blend in with their environment, and unnoticeable to predators. The algae gets a good place to live, and the crab gets camouflage. Also, even the bacteria and the human. A certain kind of bacteria lives in the intestines of humans and many other animals. The human can not digest all of the food that it eats. The bacteria eat the food that the human can not digest and partially digest it, allowing the human to finish the job. The bacteria benefit by getting food, and the human benefits by being able to digest the food it eats.

How did these individually evolve using only natural selection?

8. Consciousness – From an evolutionary stand point, it is impossible to conceive of how consciousness could naturally select itself to existence. How humans became “aware” of themselves as individuals is for lack of a better word, miraculous.

In summary, it seems that the more we learn the more it appears everything is in its particular place for a reason. Together we have a shared agnosticism so to speak, I can’t guarantee you a creator any better than you can guarantee against it. But when we think about it all as a whole, which makes more sense, guided process or random process? Take it to the sub atomic level. Does matter exist??? Or just the appearance of matter. What we have is light and energy. Perhaps we will talk about that next.

Well, that’s the gist of why I’ve come down on the side of creator vs. non creator. Tell me your thoughts and lets see if we can help each other understand our place better in this world.

Rick