The fact of the matter is, a designer, god, allah, whatever, explains absolutely nothing. While these scientific theories which we are talking about here, have their basis in mathematics and physics, and explain a multitude more about nature than the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. ever have or ever will. There certainly is a choice. One explanation apparently explains everything and yet explains nothing (How did this entity create everything?). The other explanation tries to use natural laws to explain something we do not yet understand. Are we to really believe "God" breathed and said a few words and bam, the universe is here? That is a fairy tale, a myth created to explain things which ancient peoples did not understand. The Standard Cosmological Model is far more of a beautiful, rational explanation of how our universe came to be. Why anyone gives a shred of credibility to creation myths invented by ignorant ancient peoples is beyond me.
Not even allowed as scientific evidence. But one feeling is allowed, more at the meta- level, the feeling that the conclusion logically follows from the evidence.
Precisely: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3223641&highlight=lower#post3223641
I disagree, but as you might recall I think the weak (or is it strong?) anthropic principle makes the most sense. There was not enough time for life to have emerged on Earth considered in isolation, but there was enough time for life to have emerged somewhere. By chance, it was here (if not elsewhere, too).
what are you talking about... you have it all backwards... as of now there is no evidence of random chance... and there is evidence of design... using math and science. you have the science backwards... seriously think about your argument... 1.. what is your proof that random chance caused the initial universe... vs 2. what is the proof that our universe appears designed.... please read the links I provided... they lay out the science based argument that there is evidence of design based on the fine tunings in the universe.
May be, but so are you. There is no objective compulsion to choose the scientific worldview over others. Thus, we must rely on our own feelings about which is better.