What if they want a starship?
Most human characteristics are directly or indirectly to do with the individual survival of the human and the human spreading its genes around as much as possible.
So singing, music, dancing and humour, having no apparent survival functions must have been placed into us by the giant, flying spaghetti monster.
So if we wish to please him/her/it, we must sing and dance and tell jokes a lot.
Otherwise we’ll never get to heaven.
Intelligent design makes no reference to who the designer was. And to say that we have to explain who he, she, it or them was is a logical fallacy. You dont have to answer those questions in order to infer design. If this were the litmus test then we would have discard such fields of science as paleontology, anthropology etc. which would require us to be able to make the distinction between a rock that looks like an arrowhead and one that was really designed to be an arrowhead. A forensics expert can tell a murder has been committed even if he may never know who the intelligent agent that committed the murder is or was.
Based on the observable evidence we can still believe in the big bang even though we may never know what caused the so called singularity. Before the big bang model, scientist assumed the universe to be eternal and the question of infinite regression was never an issue. As for a God head, all ways we can use is a philosophical argument in that anything omnipotent and all powerful that can exist outside of space and time is not restricted by space and time.
The point is, that the universe shows overwhelming evidence of exquisite design, and by orders of several orders of magnitude. According to Paul Davis there is now broad agreement among physicist and cosmologist that the universe is fine tuned. Roger Penrose puts the initial conditions required alone (and with out even counting the rest of the constance and forces) at being so specialized, as to be less that one part in ten to the power, ten to the power 123 i.e. (one 10^10^ 123) of happening by chance alone. This is a number so close to zero it is virtually a zero chance of happening on its own, and again that is just the tip of the iceberg. You can draw your own extrapolations. Only serious responses will be answered.
My cat’s breath smells like cat food.
For the sake of this argument, we will assume that 2 = 19. So, what is the square root of 11? Where does the evidence so far point?
OK, here’s a serious response: let’s have actual cites. I don’t know who Paul Davis is (a search brings up way too many possibilities), but I assume Penrose is enough of a scientist not to make such a stupid statement.
You (as with most ID proponents) have cause and effect reversed. The universe isn’t designed to produce us, rather all evolutionary results incompatible with the universe are impossible, leaving us. If the universe were “tuned” differently, we’d be different – and arguing exactly the same thing.
Or we could just go with the simpler “pre-exisiting beings arising by chance with the ability to create universes” adds a large number of unlikely steps to the much simpler “the universe arose by chance.”
Take your pick.
I’m not supposed to say but … it was me. Please don’t tell people.
Actually there was a ST:TNG episode (4th or 5th season) in which a goddess returned to a planet and wanted them to turn it over to her. She did various goddess-type tricks, which seem like miracles. Picard was able to reproduce them all using Enterprise technology, and the goddess was debunked.
Plus, do we really want to call Q a god?
I’d think a real god would have to be able to provide clearly superior answers to moral questions - something Western gods fall down on, to put it mildly. You wouldn’t want to listen to someone with a bigger stick (double entendre intended) but to someone with better answers to life’s persistent questions.
A really, really big lawsuit is on its way. 
Look up the anthropic principle some time. I’ve read Paul Davis, and if he is a god-believer it escaped me. What physicists do is to look for reasons the universe is the way it is. Goddidit is not very helpful.
In any case you have to define what you mean by exquisite design. Not for us, certainly. The old cosmologies, where the universe was very small were well designed for people. A vast empty universe where stars are far apart and habitable planets even further apart doesn’t seem very elegant to me. If a landscape architect designed a garden as big as Texas with one flower every couple of hundred feet you wouldn’t call the design very elegant, would you?
Large, black rectangles made of an unknown material. It’s dimensions are always 1:4:9, and are accompanied by an awesomely eerie soundtrack.
Well then you didn’t do a great job. Time for Man 2.0. And make him less belligerent.
My apologies. I was in a hurry. Its actually English physicist Paul Davies.
Your assessment is not based on the empirical evidence. Secondly I did not yet cite the rest of the Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe yet.
The men who discovered fine tuning, and the men I cited are not Christians, in fact I believe they are atheist if I’m not mistaken, but honest atheist who admit this could not have happened by chance..
You can call it an appeal to authority if you like, but below are just some of the facts I’m speaking of, in addition to Penrose’s calculation on initial conditions already cited.
Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter
Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons
1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity
1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe
1:10^55
Mass of Universe1
1:10^59
Cosmological Constant
1:10^120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
1. Strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
-
weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
-
gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry -
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
-
ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above
-
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above
-
expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
-
entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
-
mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
-
velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
-
age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
-
initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
-
average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun’s orbit
-
density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
-
average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun -
decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
-
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above -
decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
-
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result -
supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
-
white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
-
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form
-
number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result
-
number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result
-
mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
-
big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
-
size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result
-
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
-
cosmological constant if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)
Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)
John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” (15) (Since this writing he has proposed Mtheory which is not even a theory but an idea according to Rodger Penrose)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one… Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)
Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)
References
1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
2. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
5. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
6. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
8. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
9. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
10. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
11. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
12. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
13. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
14. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
15. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
16. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
17. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
18. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
21. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
22. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
23. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, “The Creation”, U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
24. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
25. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
26. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
27. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.
oooh. Footnotes.
Well then, I’m convinced that a heckuvalotta sound-bites and miniquotes taken out of context (but with Footnotes!) means that the Universe was created specifically for us, and not that we were forcecd to grow up in a way to fit into the Universe. Because otherwise, if we didn’t fit into the Universe, we wouldn’ t be here at all.
As much as I personally happen to enjoy existence, I cannot believe that Creation would notice if this little planet were as lifeless as its neighbours.
As for your statement concerning our little planet, there’s also another type of fine tuning in what some refer to as the rare earth principle, or Goldilocks planet. If you have an open mind then I suggest you read or watch the production of the “The Privileged Planet” which can be found free on line with a simple Google search. This documents and explains another level of exact requirements that need to be in just the right place at the right time. It seems the drake equation is outdated and obsolete as well as the notion that (life is simple just add water.
Magic man done it 
Apologies if it’s been posted before
At what point, technologically speaking, does sufficiently advanced aliens become magical sky fairies?
And IMO CalMeacham FTW somewhere up around post 2 or 3.
You see, this is why I’ve come to feel that we’re not much more than a really advanced “Ant Farm” for some seriously advanced, hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings.
fjord!
Ba’al, Dagon, and Asherah did it.
Who ever those are, Ill take them over nothing did it any day of the week. To believe nothing did it, now thats what I really call believing in magic. And with the exponential improbabilities already cited (and that even the late Hitchens admitted was the best evidence and should not be trivialized) sorry but when it comes to faith, I dont have anything on you fellers.