27 Mar '10 15:48>
Originally posted by amannionWe don't get anything in nature, there are many limits and boundaries. That doesn't strike me as the work of a creator, since presumably a creator could do anything.
I'm a science teacher and one of the classes I teach to secondary students is Astrophysics - a very cut down and simplified overview of space science. One of the areas we cover is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and I think there are some parallels to draw here.
A classic argument for the existence of many alien civilisations goes something l ...[text shortened]... s that there is no creator.
You may feel comfort in believing otherwise, so go ahead ...
Your reasoning is flawed on two levels. (1) It is obviously untrue that we don't get anything in nature. Ich pointed out one: trees provide us with O2 to breathe. In fact, it could be said that nature provides us with everything we need. (2) Limits and boundaries in nature may just as easily affirm the existence of a creator. For instance, earth's magnetic field: If it were much weaker, our planet would be devastated by cosmic radiation. If it were much stronger, we would be devastated by severe electromagnetic storms. Or consider protons: If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). They just happen to be 1836 times larger than electrons. Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size?
You may feel comfort in believing otherwise, so go ahead ...
Why do you insist on insulting Ich? As far as I can tell, from what information he provided, his interest in the possibility of a creator is based on reason not emotion. Why suggest otherwise? Are you that threatened by intellectual honesty? Would you like it if I suggested that the only reason you chose atheism is because it felt more comfortable than having to submit to an unknown variable like Almighty God and his expectation of obedience? Let's not malign each other.