I don't think the fact that there is a lot of extra stuff in the universe is a very compelling argument against some sort of design at play. Maybe the universe is just making it up as it goes along and the whole thing is a coarse-tuned kludge. Maybe a lot of the extra stuff might actually serve some purpose to hold the thing in place that we haven't discovered yet. If I wanted to create a place for life, I can't come up with a more elegant solution than the one we find ourselves in. The physics of a flat earth on the backs of giant turtles is far more complex than a solar system in a vast mostly empty space.

Ubjon,
Yes, 1 end of the red stick nailed to a barn door in Wigan describes an orbit in space-time that will not be repeated. Uniqueness (e.g. 1's path through space-time) abounds in nature. Is this a surprise to theists?

amused wrote: If I wanted to create a place for life, I can't come up with a more elegant solution than the one we find ourselves in.

Well, for a start, I'd do away with tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. Then I'd make more than a bit of the world hospitable temperature-wise.

orpheus wrote:

amused wrote: If I wanted to create a place for life, I can't come up with a more elegant solution than the one we find ourselves in.

Well, for a start, I'd do away with tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. Then I'd make more than a bit of the world hospitable temperature-wise.

Do you post in the "Weather report" topic? It's a balmy 285 Kelvins here. How hospitable is that?

amused wrote:I don't think the fact that there is a lot of extra stuff in the universe is a very compelling argument against some sort of design at play. Maybe the universe is just making it up as it goes along and the whole thing is a coarse-tuned kludge. Maybe a lot of the extra stuff might actually serve some purpose to hold the thing in place that we haven't discovered yet.

It suggests that there wasn't any DIRECT design. If I were to endorse ID, I wouldn't try to argue that the designer/designers specifically made the solar system in it's present state because the argument that the solar system is fine-tuned for life is only coherent if you ignore all of the phenomenon that threatens, or is irrelevant to life. At best, I would speculate that the designer/designers configured the laws of physics so that planets would evolve as a by-product of star formation; and he/she doesn't exert any direct control over the events that unfold.

Plus, if "Junk" makes sense in terms of ID, then why do proponents of ID worry about "Junk DNA," and rejoice when it's shown to have a function? Now I can see scientists finding a function for non-coding DNA, but for Pluto and it's moon? For a quasar? For all 63 moons of Jupiter? All 62 moons of Saturn? Do the rings of Saturn have a function required for life?

amused wrote:If I wanted to create a place for life, I can't come up with a more elegant solution than the one we find ourselves in.

How about doing away with some of those deadly asteroids? That would be an improvement.

If the universe behaves like fractals, then the patterns we see locally might extrapolate. If it turns out that there is life all over the universe then the universe won't care if some of it doesn't survive. Maybe it's like the animals and plants that create a gazillion offspring so that one can survive. We're just one potential bit of intelligence and the universe may be indifferent to our survival since there's more where we came from elsewhere. And what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. So butch up and stop whining about the asteroids.

amused wrote:If the universe behaves like fractals, then the patterns we see locally might extrapolate. If it turns out that there is life all over the universe then the universe won't care if some of it doesn't survive. Maybe it's like the animals and plants that create a gazillion offspring so that one can survive. We're just one potential bit of intelligence and the universe may be indifferent to our survival since there's more where we came from elsewhere. And what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. So butch up and stop whining about the asteroids.

That's why I said:

If I were to endorse ID, I wouldn't try to argue that the designer/designers specifically made the solar system in it's present state because the argument that the solar system is fine-tuned for life is only coherent if you ignore all of the phenomenon that threatens, or is irrelevant to life. At best, I would speculate that the designer/designers configured the laws of physics so that planets would evolve as a by-product of star formation; and he/she doesn't exert any direct control over the events that unfold.

The main topic of this thread is about the fine tuning of the solar system.

amused wrote:So butch up and stop whining about the asteroids.

I think we'll all be whining when the next one hits, butch or not.

Something just occured to me. If its only our solar system thats been fine-tuned shouldn't there be noticable differences between our solar systems and other solar systems that weren't fine-tuned? When we attempt to determine the series of events that resulted in the solar system as we find it and other solar systems we should have to make adjustments to account for the creators influence.

There you go. A testable way to determine whether or not our solar system was fine-tuned.

Adkinsjr wrote:
The main topic of this thread is about the fine tuning of the solar system.

Never mind.



It never ocurred to me that anyone would propose that our solar system exists in a reality separate from the rest of the universe. It always amuses me when in Star Wars ObiWan talks about the force binding the *galaxy* together. WTF? Why just the galaxy?

amused wrote:

Adkinsjr wrote:
The main topic of this thread is about the fine tuning of the solar system.

Never mind.

It never ocurred to me that anyone would propose that our solar system exists in a reality separate from the rest of the universe.

Who's proposing that?

Well, you seem to be by insisting that the discussion be limited to just the solar system. I figured the OP was just using it as a proxy for the universe.

amused wrote:Well, you seem to be by insisting that the discussion be limited to just the solar system. I figured the OP was just using it as a proxy for the universe.

Not really. The solar system is easier to comprehend, and the presence of "junk planets" hasn't been satisfactorily explained. If "fine tuning" is something real, there's a lot for the believers to explain (away). If someone wants to include the rest of the universe, it's OK, but I prefer to keep it to the solar system, as it contains enough stuff that the illiterate goatherders of yore never knew about, and which the "creator" failed to mention in the book he inspired. Genesis only mentions the Sun, Moon and the stars; no planets are mentioned, despite four being known since long before biblical times.

amused wrote:Well, you seem to be by insisting that the discussion be limited to just the solar system. I figured the OP was just using it as a proxy for the universe.

The solar system formed long after the universe began. My point was that the Universe may have been designed, but the solar system itself was not directly designed. In other words, the designer started the universe, but had no control over how it unfolded. This version of ID would make better sense.

However, I don't really accept ID, but at least an evolutionary version of it would make more sense in light of what we observe in the cosmos.

Atheistoclast wrote:1) So astrologers can make predictions.

Oh my FSM, you actually believe in astrology and that it can predict anything at all?

You're just too much, did you know that?

Atheistoclast wrote:2) For navigational purposes...Venus is bright at night.

This is the only halfway decent one on the list. Still doesn't explain Uranus, Naptune, and other planets that orbit other solar systems.

Atheistoclast wrote:3) To block nasty extra-solar system asteroids that would otherwise collide with earth.

Atheistoclast wrote:5) In the case of Mercury, to shield Earth from solar flares.

That's like an automobile company who builds a car with shitty brakes and gets praised because they put in airbags and seat belts. In other words, you're making your god out to be an incompetent desinger who fucked up and now has to cover his ass.

Atheistoclast wrote:4) A rich source of raw materials when we have the technology to exploit them.

Atheistoclast wrote:Of course, the moons and planets could support life one day, as well as being a source for raw materials.

Wow, this claim is so fucking asinine it actually physically hurts. It's like going to court, claiming that some future evidence will prove you innocent, and expecting the judge to let to rule in your favor because of that. For all the fits you throw about "evolutionists" supposedly using speculation to back up their claims you really should be the last person to speculate so fucking blatantly. But then, I've gotten used to creationists being hypocritical and having a double standard.

The teleological argument would suggest that God put the other planets in the solar system for us to discover in our own time, so that we might wonder at his awesomely powerful and mysteriously magnificent nature. Why else would he place a face on Mars, eh? Eh? EH?