Physics and God

[qspeechc]

Well, firstly, let me just say, you have only looked at a very few scientists (mostly physicist) and then you draw conclusions about the majority of scientists. There have been millions of scientists in human history, all with greatly varying opinions, some are die-hard atheists, others staunch Christians, or Jews, or whatever. No-one has actually quoted a scientific study on what scientists believe in, so rather not discuss scientists in general, but what a few individuals believe.

And let me add, simply because these people are physicists, extremely intelligent men and women, it does not, emphatically, mean that they are more qualified to speak truths and make brilliant judgements about religion, the origin of life etc. They are physicists, but other than that they are just humans. You would not ask a physicist his opinion on a medical matter and take his response seriously.

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being (whatever you want to call it) that made this universe so perfectly, just so we could survive in it. This is, in fact, the converse of the correct statement.
If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

[Bitterfly]

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being

I agree. It's a very anthropocentric idea, when you think about it, more than a theocentric one.
And wasn't the intelligen design theory carried out to an extreme when someone said that if melons had ridges, it was to help us cut them and eat them? Or that bunnies have white tails to allow us to shoot them better?

[qspeechc]

I'm not so bothered with the anthropocentric part of it, although you do show very nicely how silly it is, since someone who believes in intelligent design wil probably take delight in anthropocentric arguments. My biggest qualm is with the fact that people are looking at the argument from the wrong end, if you like. I'm worried that people seem to think it's quite incredible we live in the wonderfully perfect universe that we do. Could one examine the universe and find that it was not perfectly suited to life? That's quite impossible. Not because of a gracious god, but because if the universe was not 'perfect' we would not exists to marvel at it.

[islandclimber]

Well, firstly, let me just say, you have only looked at a very few scientists (mostly physicist) and then you draw conclusions about the majority of scientists. There have been millions of scientists in human history, all with greatly varying opinions, some are die-hard atheists, others staunch Christians, or Jews, or whatever. No-one has actually quoted a scientific study on what scientists believe in, so rather not discuss scientists in general, but what a few individuals believe.

And let me add, simply because these people are physicists, extremely intelligent men and women, it does not, emphatically, mean that they are more qualified to speak truths and make brilliant judgements about religion, the origin of life etc. They are physicists, but other than that they are just humans. You would not ask a physicist his opinion on a medical matter and take his response seriously.

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being (whatever you want to call it) that made this universe so perfectly, just so we could survive in it. This is, in fact, the converse of the correct statement.
If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

first of all if I had said the majority of scientists that is not intended to be my point, as I made this clear the thread is about physics and god, and the large number of prominent physicists who believe in some form of god... and also believe physics provides evidence for god..

second, your point on not giving any weight to their views on religion and the origin of the universe.. If physicists are likely to believe that what they are discovering and experimenting, the new theories and observations they make, if they seem to believe that these things provide evidence for god, well, they must have some reason and I am much more likely to put weight on their opinion here than someone who knows very little about science...

proof of intelligent design.. no one said proof... there is a large gap between proof and evidence.. I have said evidence and that this "evidence" seems to point towards it in my opinion... second your argument here is beyond absurd.. of course the universe has to be perfectly designed for our existence for us to exist.. that is pretty obvious.. and you are worried about it, it is wrong to marvel that against extraordinarily enormous odds, everything happened in the perfect way for us to exist, and of course it did because otherwise we would not be here, that is such a pointless statement to make... and that is not the reason people are suggesting this provides "evidence" (not proof) for existence of something behind it.. the insanely high odds against the universe developing in the way it did, to create complex life forms are what provides evidence (again not proof), at least for people who have open minds...your argument there is just stating the obvious, and using that to say what?? that the universe needing to be perfect for us to exist means there is no form of god out there.. hmmmm.. I would say this more or less provides evidence for the idea of some form of god.. same with the finite existence theories that are so prevalent today.. if the universe is finite in temporal and spatial definitions it is necessary there is something infinite behind it.. necessary... and whatever that is, it will never be explained by science in my opinion, because science can't explain or understand infinite and timeless in any way, because all definitions fall apart against them... you can't measure something that has no properties... my idea of god, or the godhead if you know what that means, is just the infinite source or essence of everything, or behind everything... whether it is personal or impersonal is up for debate though i am inclined to think the latter...

and bitterfly those extreme examples you suggest.. people often take things and provide extreme examples of possibilities that "could" be implied by them to ridicule beliefs... in some cases that is called reductio ad absurdum...the example you provide is more of a "straw man"... second anthropocentrism requires me to say I think humans are the most important thing in the universe, that universe was created so we could exist.. not my opinion in the slightest... the universe was created so everything that exists can exist, obviously.. and a stone, or rock, or an inhospitable planet is just as important as any human, or the earth..

[billyjack]

..

. of course the universe has to be perfectly designed for our existence for us to exist.. that is pretty obvious.. and you are worried about it, it is wrong to marvel that against extraordinarily enormous odds, everything happened in the perfect way for us to exist, and of course it did because otherwise we would not be here, that is such a pointless statement to make... and that is not the reason people are suggesting this provides "evidence" (not proof) for existence of something behind it.. the insanely high odds against the universe developing in the way it did, to create complex life forms are what provides evidence (again not proof), at least for people who have open minds...your argument there is just stating the obvious, and using that to say what?? that there needing to be perfect for us to exist means there is no form of god out there.. hmmmm.. I would say this more or less provides evidence for the idea of some form of god..
.

wouldnt the perfection of the universe suggest a lack of creator? why would something which is perfect need someone to create it? wouldnt existence's perfection imply the ability to grow itself? for instance, things which are created by men, ie building, roads, governments are never perfect. but that which is without a creator such as the seasons of the year, the growth of a tree, the development of a child in the womb are always quite right

[qspeechc]

Whatever weight you want to give to a physicists thoughts is your own business. Because you are an expert in one field does not mean your intelligence there translates to intelligence elsewhere- there is no necessary connection. By the way, lets please distinguish between physics and science. Physics is one branch of science.

You seem to like arguing semantics. Let's not. If you will, you will find this is in fact the exact error you make, and now you act as though it's 'obvious'. Me worried about it? Anyhow... You really don't seem the point of my post, or you're acting as though a fallacy many people fall into is obviously wrong, and we are all so smart as to see that. I don't think you've yet grasped the other end of the argument. And you like adding to my post. Nowhere did I say that this argument provides evidence that there is not a god, rather if you had read it calmly and correctly you would see that I am refuting the argument that it is evidence for a god: I am saying that your argument cannot be used as evidence of a god, my post nowhere said my argument was proof that there was no god. I still don't think you fully grasp the fact that you are looking at this argument from the "wrong end".

And when you state "science can't explain or understand infinite and timeless in any way" you throw ignorance and what appears to be a lack of understanding and/or clear thought/speech into your reply. Pease define your concepts clearly. Infinity is a mathematical concept with a very precise definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite
For an "infinite" set there exists a bijection between the set and a proper subset of the set. Your incoherent nonsensical rambling at the end of an argument does it no good.

[DapperDrake]

This could be a fun discussion by itself.

Is color a fundamental property of light?

Colour is clearly not a property of light, we see different colours at different wavelengths of visible light but the colour is created by our brains as a way of distinguishing between the wavelengths.
Blue, red, green etc have nothing to do with physics, that was what Schroedinger was on about, there is no equation or theory that can tell you what blue is... Can you explain to a person born blind what the colour blue looks like by quoting theories and equations?

[Bitterfly]

and bitterfly those extreme examples you suggest.. people often take things and provide extreme examples of possibilities that "could" be implied by them to ridicule beliefs... in some cases that is called reductio ad absurdum...the example you provide is more of a "straw man"... second anthropocentrism requires me to say I think humans are the most important thing in the universe, that universe was created so we could exist.. not my opinion in the slightest... the universe was created so everything that exists can exist, obviously.. and a stone, or rock, or an inhospitable planet is just as important as any human, or the earth..

The examples I gave are not particularly extreme; I've seen and heard them countless times before. And what you don't understand is that it already seems ridiculous to me to think that the universe has a purpose, any purpose! Why should it have one? To satisfy your thirst for meaning? But what if there just wasn't any...

If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

Quite true.

[DapperDrake]

The examples I gave are not particularly extreme; I've seen and heard them countless times before. And what you don't understand is that it already seems ridiculous to me to think that the universe has a purpose, any purpose! Why should it have one? To satisfy your thirst for meaning? But what if there just wasn't any...

The purpose of anything is only from a certain point of view. Purpose is about meaning as you say and meaning is subjective.
From my perspective the purpose of me going to work is to be paid, from my employers perspective the purpose of me going to work is to provide a service to our customers, to the government the purpose of me going to work is to perpetuate the economy etc..
Things have purpose when someone believes that they have purpose. The issue here is was the universe created? or did it just happen. I'm not sure we can answer that with just discussion.

[islandclimber]

Whatever weight you want to give to a physicists thoughts is your own business. Because you are an expert in one field does not mean your intelligence there translates to intelligence elsewhere- there is no necessary connection. By the way, lets please distinguish between physics and science. Physics is one branch of science.

You seem to like arguing semantics. Let's not. If you will, you will find this is in fact the exact error you make, and now you act as though it's 'obvious'. Me worried about it? Anyhow... You really don't seem the point of my post, or you're acting as though a fallacy many people fall into is obviously wrong, and we are all so smart as to see that. I don't think you've yet grasped the other end of the argument. And you like adding to my post. Nowhere did I say that this argument provides evidence that there is not a god, rather if you had read it calmly and correctly you would see that I am refuting the argument that it is evidence for a god: I am saying that your argument cannot be used as evidence of a god, my post nowhere said my argument was proof that there was no god. I still don't think you fully grasp the fact that you are looking at this argument from the "wrong end".

And when you state "science can't explain or understand infinite and timeless in any way" you throw ignorance and what appears to be a lack of understanding and/or clear thought/speech into your reply. Pease define your concepts clearly. Infinity is a mathematical concept with a very precise definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite
For an "infinite" set there exists a bijection between the set and a proper subset of the set. Your incoherent nonsensical rambling at the end of an argument does it no good.

I thought I just did distinguish between between physics and science.. at the start of my last post.. you might want to take a look... second I am not saying there is a necessary connection, that is pretty apparent... all I'm saying is that it is interesting that so many prominent physicists believe in god in some way.. that is pretty apparent from the posts... nowhere do I say because physicists believe it, we all have to believe it, which kind of sounds like what you are trying to imply.. which is utter nonsense... but whatever...

it is a matter of opinion whether science can be used as evidence for god... stating that it cannot as though that is fact is just silly in my opinion and many others obviously.. but you go ahead... I find that the infinitesimal chance that we could exist provides great evidence for some kind of god... same with finite existence.. and yes I do understand your side, I even subscribed to your views at one point, but no longer.. I am sorry if I took your post wrong with regard to implying physics provides evidence there is no god... I will look more carefully next time...

"infinite" is a mathematical concept that is quite irrelevant to try to define with science, to state otherwise is ignorance... first of all because all definitions necessarily fall apart... because it implies there are no spatial or temporal definitions... and science requires spatial and temporal definitions for any theory or thing to be meaningful.. and it is necessary that existence is infinite at some level, because otherwise existence would not be, although on an infinite level terms like existence and non-existence lose all meaning.. I think you need to read up on philosophy and maybe touch into hinduism and buddhism, they speak of what infinite does and doesn't mean.. it is quite interesting... infinite is a human word made up to describe a state we can't really understand.. even the word lacks meaning, for if something is truly infinite we can't measure it in anyway, we can't perceive it, we can't name it, for it is beyond definition... this is why originally what Siddhartha taught has a degree of empiricism in it.. meditation was experimentation, meant to come to awareness of anatta and nirvana , which are basically just names to describe the state of existence and non existence/ of nothing and everything/ of infinite awareness... whether you agree or not the whole point of buddhism originally was to provide enlightenment and understanding of infinite being and non being through self experimentation which was meditation... siddhartha said that each must arrive at this enlightenment through his/her own path... modern buddhism has forgotten this... but in my opinion the countless people who have followed this path or their own path to this enlightenment are just more evidence for the existence of infinite state of existence and non existence...

[islandclimber]

The purpose of anything is only from a certain point of view. Purpose is about meaning as you say and meaning is subjective.
From my perspective the purpose of me going to work is to be paid, from my employers perspective the purpose of me going to work is to provide a service to our customers, to the government the purpose of me going to work is to perpetuate the economy etc..
Things have purpose when someone believes that they have purpose. The issue here is was the universe created? or did it just happen. I'm not sure we can answer that with just discussion.

I'm not sure we can ever answer with discussion or any other means.. but it is sure fun to discuss...

[mangueken]

I think there are a couple points to I would like to make. First, as far as scientific research is concerned 100% of the world's scientists could believe in whatever form of God they want. None of their beliefs are calculated into their observations, tests or theories. Scientists are just as varied in their personal beliefs as non-scientists are but their opinions are just that - personal opinions. They are not based on any scientific evidence.
On the other hand, there are tons of things that science can't explain. There is no science that can explain the wonder we feel towards art or hearing great musicians. Divine inspiration probably is the best explanation for John Coltrane's A Love Supreme album. But that would have more to do with Coltrane's personal beliefs and his capacity to translate that through his sax. Who am I to argue whether what he believed in is definable by science or not. To the end result it doesn't matter.
My last point is about trying to find comfort in the wrong places. Science has absolutely no fight whatsoever with faith. They are two completely different areas of our lives. One of the reasons I suggested that book in a previous post was to help people understand that saying things like evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics sounds as bad to scientists as someone suggesting that it was the apostle Paul who parted the Red Sea and helped the Israelite people escape the Pharaoh's army. And even if it were true would that provide any spiritual comfort to believers?

[qspeechc]

I thought I just did distinguish between between physics and science.. at the start of my last post.. you might want to take a look... second I am not saying there is a necessary connection, that is pretty apparent... all I'm saying is that it is interesting that so many prominent physicists believe in god in some way.. that is pretty apparent from the posts... nowhere do I say because physicists believe it, we all have to believe it, which kind of sounds like what you are trying to imply.. which is utter nonsense... but whatever...

it is a matter of opinion whether science can be used as evidence for god... stating that it cannot as though that is fact is just silly in my opinion and many others obviously.. but you go ahead... I find that the infinitesimal chance that we could exist provides great evidence for some kind of god... same with finite existence.. and yes I do understand your side, I even subscribed to your views at one point, but no longer.. I am sorry if I took your post wrong with regard to implying physics provides evidence there is no god... I will look more carefully next time...

"infinite" is a mathematical concept that is quite irrelevant to try to define with science, to state otherwise is ignorance... first of all because all definitions necessarily fall apart... because it implies there are no spatial or temporal definitions... and science requires spatial and temporal definitions for any theory or thing to be meaningful.. and it is necessary that existence is infinite at some level, because otherwise existence would not be, although on an infinite level terms like existence and non-existence lose all meaning.. I think you need to read up on philosophy and maybe touch into hinduism and buddhism, they speak of what infinite does and doesn't mean.. it is quite interesting... infinite is a human word made up to describe a state we can't really understand.. even the word lacks meaning, for if something is truly infinite we can't measure it in anyway, we can't perceive it, we can't name it, for it is beyond definition... this is why originally what Siddhartha taught has a degree of empiricism in it.. meditation was experimentation, meant to come to awareness of anatta and nirvana , which are basically just names to describe the state of existence and non existence/ of nothing and everything/ of infinite awareness... whether you agree or not the whole point of buddhism originally was to provide enlightenment and understanding of infinite being and non being through self experimentation which was meditation... siddhartha said that each must arrive at this enlightenment through his/her own path... modern buddhism has forgotten this... but in my opinion the countless people who have followed this path or their own path to this enlightenment are just more evidence for the existence of infinite state of existence and non existence...

You might want to be more careful in your use of the words science and physics. You said you value a physicists opinion more since you would value a scientists opinion more, that you would putmore value on the opinion of a person that has studied science; but physics is only one branch of science. I physicist cannot tell you about what biology or chemistry says.

I used "necessary" in quite a technical sense, I appologise. What I meant was: simply because someone is an expert in one field, does not mean he/she has any expertise in another, no matter how closely related. If I am an expert in, say, one specific aspect of general relativity, prey tell how that logically requires that I can assuredly be an expert on some other topic, say the matter of the existence of a god etc. ?

You only chose to quote certain physicists that support your beliefs, as I said earlier, that sampling is by no means repesentative of all or even the majority of physicists beliefs. It may in fact be the case that most physicists are atheist, and then what sir?

Of course science can and must be used as evidence for or against the existence of a god, I never argued that! How else are we to definitively settle this question if not by fact and science?

Look, my post was to point out a very subtle logical flaw in your argument. If you understood the flaw, you would certainly not be calling it "obvious". The fact that you stated what I was arguing was obvious, and then retorted using the same fallacy suggests to me you have not really grasped the subtly of the argument. I cannot give you th exact name of the fallacy, but men greatly smarter than me have pointed out that it is not a simple error. Perhaps you need to read the argument a few more times, it really is not simple at all. Imagine, if you can, a great number of universes. Now most of them will not be conducive to life. A very few will, and we will only ever find ourselves in one of those universes that are conducive to live, so it is in fact not miraculuos that we should find ourselves in such a universe. And where did god come into this argument?

Infinity as a mathematical concept is not irrelevant to science. Mathematics is the language of all science. We could not have physics, say, without mathematics. And are you claiming that the mathematician has no grasp of the infinite? Perhaps you should study more mathematics. And I cannot argue with someone who bring bhuddism and other religions into a scientific argument. Infinity is a concept mathematicians and most physicists are quite comfortable, and quite old school to the mathematician in fact.

Btw, if the universe were finite in extent, there would not be anything beyond it, for if there were it would be part of the universe. The universe may be "closed on itself" and thus finite in extent.

[islandclimber]

You might want to be more careful in your use of the words science and physics. You said you value a physicists opinion more since you would value a scientists opinion more, that you would putmore value on the opinion of a person that has studied science; but physics is only one branch of science. I physicist cannot tell you about what biology or chemistry says.

I used "necessary" in quite a technical sense, I appologise. What I meant was: simply because someone is an expert in one field, does not mean he/she has any expertise in another, no matter how closely related. If I am an expert in, say, one specific aspect of general relativity, prey tell how that logically requires that I can assuredly be an expert on some other topic, say the matter of the existence of a god etc. ?

You only chose to quote certain physicists that support your beliefs, as I said earlier, that sampling is by no means repesentative of all or even the majority of physicists beliefs. It may in fact be the case that most physicists are atheist, and then what sir?

Of course science can and must be used as evidence for or against the existence of a god, I never argued that! How else are we to definitively settle this question if not by fact and science?

Look, my post was to point out a very subtle logical flaw in your argument. If you understood the flaw, you would certainly not be calling it "obvious". The fact that you stated what I was arguing was obvious, and then retorted using the same fallacy suggests to me you have not really grasped the subtly of the argument. I cannot give you th exact name of the fallacy, but men greatly smarter than me have pointed out that it is not a simple error. Perhaps you need to read the argument a few more times, it really is not simple at all. Imagine, if you can, a great number of universes. Now most of them will not be conducive to life. A very few will, and we will only ever find ourselves in one of those universes that are conducive to live, so it is in fact not miraculuos that we should find ourselves in such a universe. And where did god come into this argument?

Infinity as a mathematical concept is not irrelevant to science. Mathematics is the language of all science. We could not have physics, say, without mathematics. And are you claiming that the mathematician has no grasp of the infinite? Perhaps you should study more mathematics. And I cannot argue with someone who bring bhuddism and other religions into a scientific argument. Infinity is a concept mathematicians and most physicists are quite comfortable, and quite old school to the mathematician in fact.

Btw, if the universe were finite in extent, there would not be anything beyond it, for if there were it would be part of the universe. The universe may be "closed on itself" and thus finite in extent.

I am not claiming that because someone is an expert physicist we should value their opinion on the existence of god more.. and whether I have interchanged physicist and sciientist on occasion that is a mistake, and I think I have made that clear already...

and if we did look at all physicists, and the majority were atheists.. well that doesn't change anything.. As I said at the start and several times since I think it is interesting that there are quite a few prominent physicists who think that physics points directly at the existence of god...

also this question will never be settled by physics or science.. that is apparent in my opinion.. there will never be proof there is a god, and there will never be proof that there isn't a god... that is obvious... just arguments for and against, and evidence that could be said to go either way...

you're logical error argument is absurd.. and many other men as smart as those men have argued counter to that... fallacy.. only assuming you are right lol.. of course we find ourselves in a universe that is conducive to life... otherwise we would not be... it is not a miracle that we are in this universe, what is a miracle is that the universe turned out like this, when the odds are so ridiculously small that the universe would turn out in a way that would support life.. if you can't see the difference between those two things than it is you who are blind... and god doesn't have to be put into this argument.. you can call it chance that the universe turned out this way... that every possible turn went the right way for life to evolve as it did... or some will call it design.. it really doesn't matter.. of course it is not a miracle we are in a universe that supports life, this is obvious... as I said what is a miracle is that the universe expanded and evolved in the way it did.. two very different things sir...

ummm i have heard this argument before.. about the universe being finite in extent and closed upon itself.. people bring it up all the time.. lol.. compare it to say the earth if you walk around the earth you will eventually end up in the same spot.. well that is obvious.. lol.. tell me what is outside this closed universe... if it is say a sphere..and even if you cannot leave the sphere.. what is outside the sphere?? more of the universe?? the universe in my opinion is infinite spatially and temporally.. and therefore the universe is not closed on itself in my opinion.. if the big bang is correct what is the space a tiny infinitesimal universe is expanding into.. is it imaginary space that doesn't exist?

second infinite with regards to spatial and temporal definition has nothing to do with mathematics.. that is obvious.. timeless doesn't mean time just goes on forever.. temporal infinite means there is no time.. everything is a single moment.. infinite means a singularity in space and time.. which is impossible to define.. whatever science theorizes... if you cannot define infinite temporally and spatially then it falls outside of science and for the most part math too.. unless you are just talking about the mathematical infinite which is different in my opinion from infinite existence... buddhism in my opinion is better than theoretical science.. you meditate in your own mind to reach a certain state of infinite awareness.. it is self experience.. and if you want proof of infinite existence/ godhead well there it is.. or are these people all delusional?

[blazeofglory]

Well, firstly, let me just say, you have only looked at a very few scientists (mostly physicist) and then you draw conclusions about the majority of scientists. There have been millions of scientists in human history, all with greatly varying opinions, some are die-hard atheists, others staunch Christians, or Jews, or whatever. No-one has actually quoted a scientific study on what scientists believe in, so rather not discuss scientists in general, but what a few individuals believe.

And let me add, simply because these people are physicists, extremely intelligent men and women, it does not, emphatically, mean that they are more qualified to speak truths and make brilliant judgements about religion, the origin of life etc. They are physicists, but other than that they are just humans. You would not ask a physicist his opinion on a medical matter and take his response seriously.

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being (whatever you want to call it) that made this universe so perfectly, just so we could survive in it. This is, in fact, the converse of the correct statement.
If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

Do you see just there is orderliness or perfection in creation presupposes that this is created by some intelligent being, or there is super intelligence that designed this universe?

I call this is folly folly and there is no essence in thinking so. I am siding with physicists nor go against the idea of theists. I am still exploring and can not settle myself with any particular sets of ideas or theories to approve of or disregard any of these arguments. All I say this planet is mysterious, and man can not get to the root of the reason or purpose or meaning or any idea with regard to the creation of this universe.

Siding with particular sets of ideas or beliefs can not help us arrive at better and more logical ideas at all. Beliefs or faiths taken to their extremes do not help humanities at all and they become detrimental.

I beleive in moderate ideas.

Maybe physicists are right or theologists with regard to the idea of creation in point of fact and we are in dilemmas and can not say anything conclusively at all, for we all make conjectures and can not arrive at solid and substantive ideas.