(I’ll probably clean this section up later, because to be perfectly honest, I have had a few shots of whiskey and am a little bit irritated at someone right now)
Too often I find that people are not willing to engage in rational debate. They cling to dogma that was ingrained in them, and that is far more prevailant on the side of the atheist than the religious person. I once asked someone who believed wholeheartedly in Darwinian evolution on their view of the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and her response was “I don’t care how the scientists define evolution I believe in it.” Which is to say that she would be willing to view every single one of her beliefs as false if another atheistic theory were to supplant her current atheistic theory. Which is to say that her belief is not in the evidence as presented but in the conclusion. That there is no God and whichever theory supports my claim is the one I will believe. Not recognizing that this is the “blind faith’ that she accuses Christians of.
If the universe was designed for the sole purpose of housing humans, then what can we expect to find? Let’ start from the absolute basic of basics. The four fundamental forces. Gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. Not only must these things exist, they must exist at the value that they are at in order for humans to exist in the universe.
Mass and space. Space is pretty big from pretty much any point of view of us mortals living within it. The vastness of space, is it just a waste of space? What would have happened to the universe if the total amount of mass in the universe was half what it is according to our math an astronomy? No stars would have formed, no heavy metals would exist and nobody would be around to argue about to stuff on the internet. All that mass spread out through all that empty space? Is that just a bunch of wasted matter?
According to physicists, the amount of matter currently estimated by math and observations in the universe is necessary to create the proper ratio of matter to gravity in order for us to have advanced life (@@source).
So not only do we need that much space for us to have a life-sustaining planet, but we need all that extra mass that we think really has nothing to do with us.
What about time? According to study by physicists @@source it would take approximately 10 billion years in order for there to be sufficient heavy metals and minerals in existence in the universe in order to form a planet with minimum levels of material that it needs to sustain life. In addition, it would take approximately 4 billion years to develop the planet with enough radiation, cometary bombardment in order to prepare the planet once it was formed. So for life to exist on a planet approximately 14.3 billion years after the Big Bang is almost inconceivable as a simple random collision of particles.
Question for the atheist: And this will pretty much determine whether you are a skeptic or just a blind follower: If astrophysicists determine that human life could not exist on Earth unless space was as big as it is, with the amount of total matter in the universe at the exact amount (within a single atom), and humanity first arrived on Earth at the exact second that it was possible to sustain life, THEN would you entertain the thought that the universe was designed by an actual other-dimensional being? If the answer is no, then you are a zealot devoted to the government propaganda that God is dead. I will pity you and we will move on, but don’t you dare even deign to believe that you are in the intellectual majority. You are not basing your belief on rational thought or logic or the scientific method, you are an unthinking zealot.