No, it doesn't. It was a computer model based on known exoplanets:This study showed that there are around 700 quintillion planets in the universe, but only one like Earth.
"The model creates exoplanets based only on the ones we have discovered, which is an extremely small sample size that probably doesn’t provide a representative cross-section of all of the planets in existence."
"“It’s certainly the case that there are a lot of uncertainties in a calculation like this.”"
"“It’s certainly the case that there are a lot of uncertainties in a calculation like this.”"
As I said, if God created the universe, what is 'naturalistic' is entirely His choice. He could, presumably, make processes that guarantee intelligent life, and these processes would be 'naturalistic' to that life.If God uses naturalistic processes that are said to be chance then how can this guarantee the creation of humans (intelligent life). Surely God would not take a gamble on this.
People say all kinds of conflicting things about God, which suggests to me they're making it up as they go.It is the same for how life begun which is more relevant to the OP as far as protein evolution. Theistic evolution supporters say that God created the first universal living cell or organism. Some say God set this to happen with the creation of existence with the universe (big bang). So this would indicate that at some point God had ensured life would come about and therefore not leave it us to a chance naturalistic process.
That doesn't make sense; if 'things are subject to chance' in a multiverse, what does it mean to apply 'that same chance' to a single universe? a single universe isn't a multiverse.Some say a natural process is what God used but many scientists say there is no purpose with natural process and are based on blind chance which for me would not guarantee life happening. If a multiverse is used then this means things are subject to chance so therefore if that same chance is applied to only one universe then any outcome could have occurred including no intelligent life or some other kind of life that cannot have relationship with God.
And sure, if there's no intelligent life in a universe or an entire multiverse, there's nothing to have a relationship (real or imaginary) with God. So what?
We have good models that show how relatively simple physical laws produce the universe we see. God not necessary.Once again speculating into Gods logic I would imagine if intelligent life is the end result of a universe warts and all then for whatever reason that had to happen first to enable life. It is interesting that this is how it happened. The universe had to form putting all its stars and galaxies in place and then earth came along more recently and then gradually developed the right conditions for life. So earth could not happen unless our galaxy happened and our galaxy could not happen etc including all the not so good stuff. It sort of makes sense in an orderly way.
Indeed. Who knows, there may be no plan at all.But hey I am only speculating so who knows there may be some greater overall plan we cannot begin to comprehend.
Can you be more vague?I guess so but I think there is more to it than that. This has been a question human kind has asked and sought to find answers.
Whatever. It appears that despite claiming that a God or creative agent is a reasonable and logical explanation, you're going to continue ignore the question of what makes it so, or at least what makes it a more reasonable and logical explanation than 'Magic'. I think that refusal speaks for itself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0