Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Let's assume for the moment that God exists.

Precision in God: evidence of an even greater God or accidents? Ad infinitum.

Either there is an infinite regression of gods, it is all accident, or "God or accidents" is a false dichotomy.

 

Yardmeat:

Nothing that you wrote above addresses what was stated in my opening post.

Alter2Ego

 

Of course it does. It is a counterexample. It employs the same logic to reveal fault in the argument. Precision in God: Evidence of God's God or Accidents?

 

And I am sure that the creatures that can survive in the deepest trench in the ocean or in the steam vents or in caves that get no light think that their perfect environment couldn't have happened by chance.

Creatures including man evolve to their environment, the environment didn't create itself for their convenience

And by the way there are now 118 elements in the periodic table.

 

You might be interested in what some of us came up with on this question:


Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

The first Intelligence began in.....?

1. 
   Carbon based life less than 5 billion years ago, on earth.
   7 vote(s)
   46.7%
2. 
   Carbon based life in outer space.
   3 vote(s)
   20.0%
3. *
   Fundamental or nearly fundamental energy.
   5 vote(s)
   33.3%
4. 
   This is a new question that I am only now facing.
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%

My own answer, (as you can see by the * was "Fundamental or nearly fundamental energy."

 

Nah, this entire idea is silly. The laws of nature and the manifestation of matter were both likely randomly settled through quantum perturbations in the early universe. And then, of course, every physical system in the universe is then guided by these natural laws. That's not "precision", it's just selection.

 

Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

The word accident is misplaced here.
Are the precise angles of crystals accidental?
Is the precision of solar Radiation/plant growth an accident?
Maybe the mass of Earth creating the precise gravity humans need?

 

yardmeat:

You are dodging the questions in my OP. Until you can address those questions that I raised therein, you will receive no further responses from me.


Alter2Ego

 

The questions in your opinion start from flawed assumptions, as the counterexamples provided demonstrate.

 

Mamasaid:

Until you can provide an example of ANYTHING considered a LAW that repeatedly results at random aka by accident, what you are presenting in your above response is amounts to wishful thinking. Below is the definition of "random" from Websters Dictionary. Notice the words bolded in blue.

"Definition of random

: a haphazard course

at random
: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method



1a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern

b: made, done, or chosen at random"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random​

Suppose you explain to this forum how something that is RANDOM could become the exact opposite--repeatedly--by becoming a LAW of nature. Below is the definition of "law" as in law of nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary.

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."

Until you can provide a legitimate source that has performed experiments in which random: "without direction ... lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern" was switch to the opposite direction and repeatedly became law of nature: "occurs with unvarying uniformity" I will have to consider what you posted above as garbage.

Alter2Ego

 

I said the laws themselves arose randomly, which appears to be the case by all the evidence, theoretical and empirical. Then they acted upon the universe via selection. There is no "precision" to speak of, as the laws could have been different, and certainly are in other universe.

 

No doubt it does, to those who worship at the altar of Omnipotent Idiocy.

 

Science is umoved by the impotent insults of whiny religious goobers.

 

Science is one thing; stereotypical internet atheists, quite another.

 

I have yet to see a single response in this thread that can explain away the points stated in my opening post, and this thread has been around for several years. That's quite interesting.

Alter2Ego

 

Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Laws of physics. Perhaps that is a better name for god.

 

1. I don't know. It probably didn't take long for scientists to determine that atomic structures and weights could become more and more complex. This is sort of a meaningless question.
2. Neither. It is how the laws of physics work.
3. Both of them happen from the laws of physics. One is proven without a doubt to scientists and one is not yet. Evolution is very close to being a physical law. It has not a single scientific alternative.

 

Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Neither....Nature IS precision.

 

Entropy without corresponding input of enthalpy from outside a closed system always leads to increasing disorganization.

And that's all I have to say.

 

The random part supplies an incrediby broad menu of choices. However, even there the choices supplied are guided by fundamental laws of physics - it's not actually random. This part isn't the primary source of the increasing order we see.

From there, selection processes take over. These processes reject the majority of the menu in was specific to the seection process. Survival of the fittest is one selection process.

You need to be less concerned about the random part and FAR more interested in the selecion part.

 

WillReadmore:

The time you wasted posting the above would have been best spent providing a credible explanation for why events that were not deliberately guided by in intelligent being aka RANDOM events became the exact opposite--by themselves--by turning into LAWS OF NATURE.

Alter2Ego

 

One of the best known selection criteria is that of survival of the fittest.

When a random mutation leads to being less competitive, it is more likely to be excluded.

When a random mutation leads to being slightly more competitive in some way, it is more likely to continue.

I don't know of any claim that evolution led to "laws of nature". Evolution didn't create survival of the fittest, for example.

 

WillReadmore:

The term "survival of the fittest" has different meanings for different people. What does the term "survival of the fittest" mean to you? Please explain.

At no time has a "random mutation" provided what an organism needs, so that the organism would become, according to you, "more competitive." So what point are you attempting to make with your use of random mutations.

Where, within this thread, did I say anything resembling "evolution led to laws of nature"? If you would bother to read my opening post, you will note that this thread is about precision in nature as evidence of God. This thread is not about evolution myth.

Alter2Ego

 

You can't defend your idea about god being required without addressing the methods that science has discovered are fully adequate.

Survival of the fittest is way of describing natural selection, with fitness defined as reproductive success.

The idea that mutation doesn't provide what organisms need is just plain silly. Without mutation we would not need a different flu vaccine every year. Without mutation, we wouldn't be in constant search for medicines that will kill bacteria as bacteria become more and more resistant to our current medical arsenal. Without mutation within the last 20k years human adults wouldn't be able to digest milk - in fact, there are remote populations today where that mutation hasn't reached, so for these adults digesting milk is a problem.

Mutation is constant and is everywhere.

 

Utter, utter rubbish.