The universe is what it is. The term faulty implies that something, in this case the universe, is unable to perform some function for which it was designed. Since there is no evidence that the universe (a) was designed, and (b) that it serves some purpose, it would be inappropriate to describe the universe as faulty.
I will be curious to know if you have been unaware (it seems) of the
often 'said' notion by atheists that
"if the universe was a design, then it's a "poor design" etc. & etc., i.e. faulty. My response to the intial post of stevebank was in context; to his thought from an engineer/ human perspective when he syays:
"All that does speak to me, it says the universe is a violent chaotic existence. From an engineering view anything that designed it or caused it to be has its head up its ass."
Whether the universe design was intentional or not, I merely posted a different opinion..
not a claim.
However, if someone were to assert that the universe was designed to support life, as creationists do, then it would be reasonable to point out that an overwhelmingly vast majority of the the universe is hostile to the existence of life. Which appears to rebut the creationist claim that the universe was designed to support life.
Context is important.
If creationist claim this then you'll have to tell me which ones. Christian creationists do not make claims for other similarly evolved, organic life being out there. That goes against being centre of God's creation.
In fact having evidence for more life out there would be in favour and in line with the concept hypothesis, "
there must be many Earth like planets, or other forms of life to be out there,"
because logically - the universe being
so great in size, and solar-sytems so great in number to exist (and thats just from our own galaxy alone) -
should therefore I would think, sensibly posit the idea that there'd be ALL types of combinations and various stages for life! What more, if adding and increasing the probabilites many fold from the other galaxies that are similar too? Ufo-ers would be your best allies on this. But... unfortunately, there is no evidence for life out there! We seem to be alone.
In regards to the "rebuttal." If the universe is a design. The universe DOES support life. You are it!
Insignificant to whom? Who came up with this grand scheme that you are talking about?
Since there is no evidence that the universe is sentient, the existence of humans would not appear to be of any significance to the universe. The question is meaningless - it is similar to asking, "what does that rock think about the existence of humans?". The rock cannot think.
If you are asking whether human existence is significant to humans, then the answer would be "DUH!!".
The insignificance was taking from the atheist viewpoint - in the context that the viewpoint is that we are not the centre of the uiverse. In the grand scheme of things - significantly small.
Your second point is that nature appears to be a machine, and I think it is wrong to characterize it that way. The reality we observe is driven by the interaction of matter and energy following apparently simple patterns which we call the laws of nature. Our universe is very young, a mere 13.8 billion years old, and it started from a state of low entropy and very small inhomogeneities that resulted in the existence of matter/energy gradients across spacetime. It is the existence of these gradients that make the universe behave the way it does today, but these gradients will be equalized over time, and in about 10^150 years or so these gradients will cease to exist. And time will cease to exist along with it.
I describe it that way (as have non-religious have too) - because with all those processes throughout space and time or whatever, as you posted above - the universe produces and functions like a
'factory plant and recycling plant.' Currently so far... and from the understanding concluded from scientific observations. The universe keeps doing what it does automatically, producing planets and stars etc...
Just because the universe does something does not mean or even imply that it was designed to do that thing. Here in South Carolina, it rains from time to time. That doesn't mean the weather was designed to produce rain on South Carolina.
Like the above response, there are
no claims regarding what the universe does, implies the evidence for intentional design. I gave a different viewpoint in context that the universe behaves systematically and mechanically.
There's no issue again in my view, when it comes to Entropy, as this also agrees with my theistic pov, that the old things (world or universe), will fade away!
Really, the Bible talks about entropy, heat death and degradation of energy/matter gradients over a period of 10^150 years? I must have missed it. Which verse is that again?
Verses plural, because context matters as you say. Death (and degradation) came into the world (multiple verses) from sin - all things living, plants and animals and mankind, eventually dies. Old things, old world will fade away in Revelation. I said it agrees (going in the same direction with entropy) with your post above.
