Why Make The Earth Dependent On Anything? (QCCA #5 & 6)

This article is just one in a long series addressing questions posed by agnostic blogger Larry Simons in his article entitled, 31 Questions Christians Can’t Answer. For the rest of series click here. Enjoy!

 

#5 Why would God need 122 “constants” to provide life on Earth? (“constants” are precise scientific conditions in which if altered slightly [like Earth being just 1% closer to the sun], life on Earth would cease)

#6 If God could create the universe by the wave of His hand or the utterance of a command, why not make Earth dependent on nothing to sustain life?

Before anything else my first response to both of these questions and so many of the others (specifically 10, 15, 18, 25, and 29) is “Why not?” These questions really are a matter of preference not logic, either on the part of Mr. Simons or God. In other words, lets imagine for a moment that God created a universe with exactly zero scientific constants, wouldn’t the sceptical question then be, “Why would God create a universe that is always in flux in all of it’s fundamental laws and processes?” or some other iteration thereof?
Next we come to a question that has already been asked and answered by your humble author (me!) in a previous post, namely “can God do logically impossible things?” Dear readers, I’ll give you all credit for far more intelligence than would be necessary to click the link, read and decide for yourselves whether my argument that He can not is sound, and therefore I won’t rehash it here. Suffice it to say that some constants are logically necessary to make the universe intelligible at a minimum, to say nothing of sustaining life.
So, now that I have successfully dismantled the questions I’ll indulge Mr. Simons with a hypothesis. Assuming that God could, by fiat, create a universe where nothing depended on anything else to sustain its life and all laws and processes were in flux, why would He deliberately choose to create the universe we live in today? I propose that it is precisely so that we could see Him in it. Without the intelligibility inherent in the universe as we know it nothing could be knowable. The very phrase “I think, therefore I am” would be meaningless.
The better question, and the one I’ll put to Mr. Simons specifically and other sceptics generally, is how do you explain the existence of these constants and their fine tuning even going back to the big bang itself apart from a transcendent designer?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s