Ari writes: A lot of religious people use that argument, but it just doesn’t hold water to a non-religious person. Firstly, it’s an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy – the odds of the universe turning out this way are incredibly small, but the truth is it had to turn out some way, and if it turned out very different whatever passed for intelligent life in another universe would ask the same question.
Most adherents point out that if one universal constant were changed only slightly, the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. While this is true, it is still very possible that a universe unlike our own would have developed. Earth may not have formed as it did if gravitational force were weaker, but another planet could still have formed around another star capable of supporting life.
It’s an argument that usually only convinces those who are already convinced. Lest you think I am too cold hearted, I do see the wonders of creation as testifying to the awesomeness of god. When I look at things like the Hubble’s images of far away nebula I can’t help but feel humbled by the wonders of god’s creation. However it is my fundamental belief in god which leads me to see his handiwork when I look at the natural world, not the other way around.
On a personal level I believe in HKBH, but I do not need a pseudo-scientific argument to prove it to me – there is a reason they call it faith. I also believe that it god wanted to be proven, it would have been done easily, therefore any attempts to prove god will ultimately fail because clearly does not want to be proven. Again, god clearly wants us to have faith. I usually find all attempts to scientifically "prove" god to be so fallacious and unscientific that they actually do more harm than good.
ANON POSTS: People get sick and die constantly. Who says we are engineered in the best way possible? I have flat feet and my feet hurt all the time. Could be better.
