A “Just Right” World – Created by a Someone

The earth is a sanctuary of life. We live on a visited planet. It’s fine-tuned for life. Earth is the only planet we know of that contains an atmosphere that can support human, animal, and plant life. The earth has all the marks of an artist hand. Our Earth is perfectly designed for life. It is “just right.” If gravity was slightly less, we would explode off the planet. If it was slightly more, we would implode into the ground. Its size and corresponding “just right” gravity force hold a thin, but not too thin, layer of gases to protect us and allow us to breathe. The Earth is also placed at a “just right” distance from the sun and the other planets in our solar system. If we were closer to the sun, we’d burn up. If we were farther away, we’d freeze. Because Earth’s orbit is nearly circular, this slightly elliptical shape means that we enjoy a quite narrow range of temperatures, which is important to life. The speed of Earth’s rotation on its axis, completing one turn every 24 hours, means that the sun warms the planet evenly. All of these values are just precisely what is needed to sustain life. Modify one of these things just slightly, and like a house of cards, our world collapses. Someone took great care in building our earth and it’s balanced on a razor’s edge. The dials are set too precisely to have been random accident. Somebody has monkeyed with the physics to make it work. I would wager to say that it’s not a “fairy.”



Filed under Atheism, Creation, Earth, First Cause, God

7 responses to “A “Just Right” World – Created by a Someone

  1. Is it ‘just right’ that humans can’t survive on three-quarters of the planet?

  2. Think cosmically. In a cosmos full of planetary bodies, there is only one that sustains life as we know it. All the pieces are present to balance life on a razor’s edge.

    What three-quarters do you speak of?

  3. The three-quarters covered in water.

    And the fact that the land that we do have is mostly either too hot or too cold for human habitation without a lot of help from science and technology.

    To paraphrase a film, your world view certainly has ‘quite a waste of space’ if you imagine there’s definitely no other life out there somewhere.

  4. But even in water, there is life – marine and acquatic beauty.

    And part of God’s image in us is to be stewards of all that we have – to take care of this earth and use science and technology to enhance it, shape it, and draw out the beauty of it (not rape it and abuse it and destroy its beauty – but that’s another topic).

    Your point about life “out there somewhere” is also precisely my point. We are not alone in this galaxy. There is life out there, an existence of Someone who is not constrained by those things essential to life on our planet.


  5. There is a reason why most fine-tuning arguments focus on the Universe as a whole rather than just Earth. Not only is Earth not quite the perfect haven for life that you make it out to be (eventually it will be incapable of supporting even basic life), but our presence here can be explained in Anthropic terms. Unless the Earth is unique in some way, we can assume that there are many planets out there capable of supporting life (the point you made). The fact that we find ourselves on one of those life-supporting planets is not mystery at all, then.

    A more fruitful approach to this is to ask why the Universe is such that life-supporting planetary systems can exist in the first place. (This is the best ‘fine-tuning’ argument, in my opinion, although that may be because it relies several assumptions that are currently untestable.)

  6. How do you think human life came into existence on planet earth? Assuming that a living cell cannot come from non-living matter, how would you suggest one go about explaining the origins of human life? Curious in your opinion if you have time.

  7. Right now I’d put my money on some sort of abiognesis. A living cell can ‘come from non-living matter’, although what initially develops out of that matter is not a living cell, and especially not a modern living cell, which is a very complex thing indeed. People have this idea that abiogenesis describes a fully-formed cell popping into existence from ‘goo’, but that’s not what it’s about at all. The process is conceived of as being much more gradual and taking quite a long time.

    As well as that, keep in mind that, if abiogenesis occurred, there would be a very blurred line between the point at which the earliest cell-like structure went from ‘non-living’ to ‘living’. Much like the debate surrounding whether or not viruses should be classified as living, it would be difficult to pinpoint the exact moment at which a proto cell-like structure should be considered alive.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s