getting back into philosophy

i used to love (and still do love) philosophy. ive stated this many times before, but if money were no object i believe i would dedicate my life to something more creative and free form. i would read a lot more and i would spend my time wandering. wandering anywhere.

unfortunately, even (especially?) in the richest, such a life is not possible except for a few people. but i can always try.

and so today i thought id mention my thoughts on the teleological argument for the existence of god. perhaps its not fair to say, but i dont find this argument particularly compelling. yes, it seems incredible that our planet is in the perfect placement with the perfect conditions in a perfect universe for life. but what conditions allow life to exist? where can life not exist? what is not life? i dont think we could even say that life could not exist had the initial constants of the universe been different— the closest we could maybe get is that life as we know it would not exist.

that said, why would any of that matter? why would any all powerful being need any sort of conditions to create life? if he wanted life to exist, it would, merely because he wanted it to. it wouldn’t matter if the universe was made only of radioactive isotopes.

does anyone know of the most effective version of this argument? is there more to it than what i understand?

---

203 - 10/08/2025