Earth as proof for God?

#ateheism @markfromkent @Sacerdotus @jackyoest @r2rock @stillmereally @padremoya

It has just been presented by markfromkent that there is proof of god.

Mark's argument relied on the specific conditions on Earth which (according to this old and dead argument) implies intentional design.

This is what can be called the "Goldie Locks" argument because the very "special" zone in which the Earth is places is often referred to as the Goldie Locks zone; not too hot, not too cold, just right :)

Having introduced the subject, I am now going to demonstrate that the above argument fails on at least two grounds (in reality there are more grounds but I do have limited time).


Ground #1 - Circular logic

The argument fails from the outset because it empoloys a fallacy known as Begging the Question (Circular Logic).

The argument says this:

1. The outcome (the very life-friendly conditions on Earth) is very very improbable

2. Therefore it must have been the result of deliberate design.

Let's stop here and think about this proposition.

Every event is very very very improbable. Think about a planet like Jupiter and some reaction that takes place involving its gasseous (sp?) atmosphere. If any single of a very very large number of conditions were not satisfied, that reaction would not take place. Or it would have taken place but a little bit differently. That specific reaction is very very very very improbable in any one randomly-selected place in the Universe. This goes for every single reaction in the Universe; very very very very rare and very improbable (in fact, to go further, the Universe is by very very very far mostly empty space and ANY REACTION AT ALL is special indeed, without even addressing specific places like Jupiter or Earth; SIDE NOTE, Don't dwell)

Having regard to the above, any state of affairs in any specific place of the Universe is very very very improbable, just as the state of affairs on Earth.

Hence, the argument doesn't even get off the ground AT ALL unless we can demonstrate that there's something special about THIS PARTICULAR STATE OF AFFAIRS. And how special must it be? It must be special enough to support the idea of intelligent design. But we can only say that there was any intelligent design (for this specific state of affairs) if we first demonstrate that the said state of affairs was the INTENDED GOAL of some process or entity. In other words, UNLESS there was some creator who REALLY WANTED TO GIVE RISE TO LIFE, there exists no reason to think that the existence of life is the ultimate goal in any entity's intelligently planned design.

Hence, the argument must start with a hidden premise "life was the desired goal". But wait, if it starts with that premise, it must have ALREADY ASSUMED that there existed an entity who had FORMED THAT GOAL; aka God. What follows is that the argument uses its CONCLUSION as one of its PREMISES; and therefore is circular. It fails.


Ground #2 - the argument lacks any evidentiary backup

The argument as presented by #markfromkent claims that the specific conditions on Earth are so vastly improbable that Earth is a single very special place in the Universe. But this is an assumption with no basis for it. In order to form any idea of the probability involved, one would have to rely on an Equation (Kind of like the Drake Equation which seeks to calculate the probability of another intelligent civilisation in the Universe). The basis for this equation would have to be knowledge about the number of stars in the Universe, how many have planets, how many of those planets have magnetic fields etc etc etc. At the moment, there do exist a number of such equations (the Drake Equation being the original model and still existing and being modified as more and more knowlege is obtained by scientists about the Universe). However, they are based on such hugely unreliable estimates that they range from saying that there are billions of intelligent civilisations in the Universe to saying that even our single one is close to impossible.

But I'm going too far. I don't need to demonstrate that any particular equation is wrong; none was presented by Mark in the first place. To put in another way; Mark presented no evidence to support his claim that Earth's conditions are so vastly improbable in the Universe that they should be consider as special at all.

There you have it, folks. The argument has no legs for the above reasons.

But there's more (just for the fun of it). Think about this:

1. If an intelligent god created the Universe for the purpose of it having LIFE then why would he create it in such a way that 99.99999999999999999% of it (or whatever figure you like) is incapable of sustaining life? It makes no sense at all. And note that "to make us wonder" is not an answer to this question (as entertaining as it does sound). An omnipotent entity COULD create a life-friendly place without making it soooooo huuuuuge and so life UNFRIENDLY.

2. Why would the entity create such kind of life that can only exist in a very narrow time-span when compared to the age of the Universe? Note that "god works in mysterious ways" is not an answer (as entertaining as it does sound).

Best Regards
@allocutus