Seun:
We occupy such a small part of the universe, and have existed for such a short time compared to the age of the universe, the earth, or even life on earth, that I'd say that it is absurd to even entertain the notion that the universe and nature were created for us. Especially when we have no evidence that the universe was created by a conscious being who had a particular purpose for creating it.

johnydon22:
while this is true, i believe you'd be surprise just how weirdly bizzarre nature is, there are lots of surprises.

Elaborate on the steady gravity.



I believe the earth is slowing down actually..

johnydon22:
Good points - so basically we are one of the numerous accidental effects of a random chaotic uncharted cosmic dance?

DoctorAlien:
Scientists are still experimenting on the ability of Mars to support life. Life has not been discovered outside earth.

4kings:
Brilliant!!!

byteHead:


What i mean is that d entire universe follows the same laws. And these laws never change.

Your coffee left on a counter will always become cool. Gravity remains steady, never random. The speed of light remains constant. The earth rotates in 24 hours.

byteHead:


I mean that d law of gravity is fixed anywhere in d universe ie two objects will attract each other with a force that is proportional to their mases and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Does this law exist in the quantum world ?

Seun:
Yes. Everything we know at this point in time suggests it. We are lucky to exist, and should make the most of it, as cloudgoddess once pointed out. The view that nature was made for man is as absurd as the view that the United Kingdom was made for Prince George.

raphieMontella:

bro..longest!
Howdy?

ValentineMary:

Does this law exist in the quantum world ?

byteHead:



A very big problem that we face is trying to reconcile general relativity which describes gravitation, and applications to large-scale structures (stars, planets, galaxies), with the demands of quantum mechanics which describe fundamental forces acting on d atomic scale.

The conflict between the two halves of physics has been brewing for more than a century.

In general relativity, events are continuous and deterministic, meaning that every cause matches up to a specific, local effect. In quantum mechanics, events produced by the interaction of subatomic particles happen in jumps ( quantum leaps), with probabilistic rather than definite outcomes. Quantum rules allow connections forbidden by classical physics.

When you try to interpret smooth relativistic laws in a quantum style, or vice versa, things go dreadfully wrong.

raphieMontella:

the earth ''day'' has been increasing...the earth is slowinng down...

johnydon22:
The title of the thread is clear enough, there have been arguments back and forth on this board on the point of view that nature is precise and ordered and on the other side that it is not and a third opinion where i fall into that both order and chaos are equally represented in nature.

The very apex of creation as presented by different theological standpoints [religions] humans have is man, every religion paints a picture of a cosmos that almost seems to be centered towards man.

Now the topic of the discussion here is as the title reads.

Was nature made to accomodate man or is nature not only dangerous but indifferent of everything including man?

If yes give reasons and if No also state reasons, lets discuss on a high intellectual ground with as much friendliness and kindness one can entertain.

[N:B - To person/persons who would take any direction this thread might take personal [whether is pricks your belief or unbelief], there is a certain degree of emotional stability required when engaging in issues of public concern, it's either such a person learn some and not bring up childish personal tantrums into the field or better still ignore the thread]


Cc. Loj, Lordnicklaus, dorox, seun, ValentineMary.. Invite others, thread is open

I'll post my article on this topic after this thread

MrPresident1:
You Seun are a accident of nature?

dorox:

In a previous thread I argued that with perfect information a model can be made that could accurately predict every single event that will take place in the universe far into the future. With such a model, one can accurately predict when and where the next asteroid would hit the earth, or all the storms the earth will experience hundreds of years into the future, or the birth of a new star and the day the star dies. Such a model that can see perfectly into the future will have no random event since the cause of every event would be known and predictable.

I see chaos as useful "tools of nature", just like a sharp knife is a useful tool in the hands of an experienced chef, but a dangerous object in the hands of a kid, it is not dangerous by itself, how we interact with it makes it dangerous.

We can agree that nature is just right for man to exist otherwise we won't be around to ask the question. Whether or not it was made to accommodate us is a question whose answer depends on our view of whether or not God exist.

If we answer yes to the question of whether there is God, then we would see nature as created with the objective of accommodating man. But if we answer no to where God exist, every existence including nature and man becomes accidental.

Shiitposter:


Negligible, its barely noticable.
I think what he mention was on a grand (classical) scale.

Seun:

I exist because my parents decided to have kids. Now my life is mine and I can dedicate it to any purpose that I deem worthy.

lordnicklaus:
Good thread @ johnydon22. Sorry I replied late. Nature follows an order inherent to itself. For every indifference nature poses, man has always come out victorious, conquering every pangs of disasters and rage of mother nature. This complex ecosystem has been programmed to withstand every ounce of fury that ravages its entire biosphere, it would seem man was made to adapt to nature. The earth itself was placed beyond the sphere of solar chaos being engulfed in a magnetic field that shields its entire atmosphere from the power of solar radiations. So I would say nature and man are complementary.

Niflheim:
@Johnnydon22,

Nature was definitely not made for man!!! If it were, then how does one explain all the natural things in Nature that can kill a man?
1.Naturally occuring Radon gas

2.Malaria

3.Hurricanes

4.Molten magma

5.Poisonous snakes

6.Wild apricots

7.Hemlock

8.Floods

9.Meteorite strikes

10.Lightening

This is as ridiculous as saying that, "the tape worm found a comfortable home in the 4 year old child's stomach, with enough food and nourishment, so therefore, the child was must have been created to house the tape worm!!!"

johnydon22:


In order words Man was made to adapt to nature and not nature made for man?

herald9:
I used to be an ardent believer of intelligent design, but the many catastrophes that have been ravaging the earth from time immemorial and even recently made me shift towards the fence.

Nowadays I don't even know what to think anymore.

Like, if I was to design a house, I would strive to make it safe that the occupants can sleep with all eyes closed and not fearing the roof caving in or other unforseen mishaps.
The safety and durability of the building will give credence to my abilities, qualifications, etc. But otherwise would raise many questions to the latter, and hence, undermines the 'intelligence' in the design.

But I think this could be explained away by citing the forces that is at work on the earth - one trying to pull it together and one trying to rip it apart. The tension created in these tug of war-like situation sparks off catastrophes since there's nothing regulating these two forces....

johnydon22:


Does a flaw in a design make the construct any less designed? It just shows the designer to be a pretty terrible/shabby designer or is just learning making mistakes while at it..

So does flaws really negate design?

hahn:


No it doesn't. Unless the designer of something shabby is claiming to be perfect.

Can shabbiness be the product of something perfect?

johnydon22:


exactly flaws do not negate design but only shows imperfection on the part of the designer.

So [if the universe was design] flaws in universe shows it was not made by anything perfect therefore the ideas of [perfect creators] do noy hold but an imperfect one does.

hahn:


True.

But then he can still be most high. That would explain a lot of things

johnydon22:


when someone argues design, it doesn't necessarily mean the Abrahamic God(s)...