Origins. By Random Chance?

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete Pete says the universe appears to be zillions of light years in size. Pete thinks the universe could well be 15 billion years old. The bigger the universe, the bigger is God! I am puzzled. Aren't liberals supposed to be open minded and not prone to pre judge others? So you guys assume that all Christians follow the fundy line of thought held by what? 15%, at the most of Christians? Sterotyping is not a good thing. Don't you agree?? My, I hope you don't judge and assume things about people of color in the same way you approach Christians. I am sure you all don't think all Mexicans are gang bangers, because the ones you read about are. The same for Blacks. At least that is what I hope. Say it ain't so. Just so you know, my issue is whether the universe came to be by theistic or non theist cause. But I digress. Got evidence?

its simple, if you think the universe is big then you can agree there are a lot of chances that chaos can form into order.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: SNPete Your point is well taken. What I have set up is to turn the tables, so to speak, and ask the non theists to provide evidence to support their position. As you are well aware, we theists are always challenged to provide objective evidence for the existence of God. Turn around is fair play.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You can't prove a negative. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. He created the universe. I know. He told me. I'm his herald. Disprove it.

[SNPete]

Quote by: rez its simple, if you think the universe is big then you can agree there are a lot of chances that chaos can form into order.

Yes, but nothing is proved. However, it is illogical that chaos forms into order by itself. Science indicates that the opposite tends to be the case.

Entropy.

[SNPete]

Quote by: Son of Belial The burden of proof is on the accuser. You can't prove a negative. Prove there is no Easter Bunny. He created the universe. I know. He told me. I'm his herald. Disprove it.

Can't prove a negative. Quite so. You said it, not I.

Who is the accuser?

I have only asked for evidence. None yet.

Time for bed. Perhaps when I awake I will view this thread and someone will have evidence for a nontheistic origin of the universe.

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete Yes, but nothing is proved. However, it is illogical that chaos forms into order by itself. Science indicates that the opposite tends to be the case. Entropy.

Chaos Theory?


Nothing is proved in science.


Again......

Quote by: Sonart There it is. Simply because we may not know something does not mean it's not knowable or that we won't know it in the future. "Since history has shown that we've found rational explanations for the unknowns that plagued man in the past, unknowns that man used to attribute to gods, then the best bet is that there are rational explanations for those things we still don't know, rather than continuing to attribute them to gods." -- Daniel's Wager

Now I know you did not respond to this post for some odd reason, but I am going to keep showing it to you.

And seeing how im such a nice liberal, im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you touched on Sonart's post.

Quote by: SNPete For all we know future discoveries may create more questions than answers.

Now do you want to further explain why you think this?

[RickSp]

Quote by: SNPete So if the universe did not come to be by chance, random or otherwise (as if!), then one must conclude it came to be by design. Unless there is a third alternative???

Is you imagination so limited that you can't imagine anything but your own perspective? Or more likely, not even your own perspective, but the one that you were taught as a child.

Randomness and chance are not easy to find in the universe. Even the misnamed "chaos theory" is the study of phenomenon which may appear to be random yet are indeed ordered non-linear systems. Apollo need not ride a chariot across the sky for the sun to rise and set. Newton demonstrated that his simple equations could indeed predict the motion of the spheres with reasonable accuracy. The universe is very orderly with or without your theology.

Your designer vs chance argument does not even offer two alternatives. It is a single choice and a mirror image. Your alleged logic of order requiring a designer is not logic at all, but an article of faith. It is a restatement of the "if there is a clock there must be a clockmaker" non-argument that is convincing to no one save the faithful.

If you are arguing that there is a God who set all things in motion, then the argument reverts to the old "First Cause" debate - if all things have a cause then God is the First Cause. And the age old rejoiner is "and what was the cause of God?" If the reply is "God has no cause," then the question becomes "then why must the universe have a cause?"

If you see God in order, fine. That is your faith. Just try to imagine how others can observe the the complexity and order of the universe with wonder and awe without your God or your dogma being interposed.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Well, maybe the bible shouldnt be taken so literally. Remember that even though the bible is seen as "bad" to some, it did pave the way for all these discoveries(im not saying that without it we couldnt have), but thanks to the bible it helped us reproduce in a more slowed down way, by marrying people so that they dont go off bonking like jackrabbits. Children therefore had male role model fathers that stuck around. Cars and transportation give people so much power that easy transportation of land has broken family structures around the nation therefore decreasing faith in god. I hate to say it but faith in god is a healthy thing, it balances out many things. Can you not say that natural selection played a huge role in the spread of religious beliefs? It has a lot more significance thatn you would think.

[SNPete]

[quote=rez]Chaos Theory?


Nothing is proved in science.


Again......

Quote by: rez Now I know you did not respond to this post for some odd reason, but I am going to keep showing it to you. And seeing how im such a nice liberal, im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you touched on Sonart's post. Quote by: Sonart There it is. Simply because we may not know something does not mean it's not knowable or that we won't know it in the future. "Since history has shown that we've found rational explanations for the unknowns that plagued man in the past, unknowns that man used to attribute to gods, then the best bet is that there are rational explanations for those things we still don't know, rather than continuing to attribute them to gods." -- Daniel's Wager?

I agree that many things like lightning have been shown to have a physical cause. What this guy is saying it is better to believe that ther is no God until we have proof. That is fine for him. My experience and the subjective evidence that I am billions have experience tell us otherwise.Answered prayer, healings, guidance and peace of mind in time of trouble, etc. That sort of thing.


But that is not the point of this thread. What is happening here is the classic tactic to derail the point when one has no answer to the question asked. No one has evidence to support a nontheistic view of origins. So let's talk about something else. Oh well.

Bottom line is that there is no evidence. So I say the atheist has no evidence to support his or her view. Logic yes. Subjective evidence that seem to indicate nontheistic origins, yes.

Quote by: rez Now do you want to further explain why you think this?

Because this has been the pattern for Cosmology and Physics. For example: In 1900, glalxies were unknown. Then we discovered ther were other galaxies. But wait, these galaxies seem to be moving away, how come?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

The chaos theory is something thats there to figure out patterns that are already there, chance and probability are only us trying to figure out these patterns. Im sure people back in the day thought weather was random, but its really not.

[SNPete]

Quote by: RickSp Is you imagination so limited that you can't imagine anything but your own perspective? Or more likely, not even your own perspective, but the one that you were taught as a child. .

I could say the same to you re the perspective. BTW, I became a christian at age 24. I was raised atheist.

Quote by: RickSp Randomness and chance are not easy to find in the universe. Even the misnamed "chaos theory" is the study of phenomenon which may appear to be random yet are indeed ordered non-linear systems. Apollo need not ride a chariot across the sky for the sun to rise and set. Newton demonstrated that his simple equations could indeed predict the motion of the spheres with reasonable accuracy. The universe is very orderly with or without your theology..

Yes, but this does not rule out a creator.

Quote by: RickSp Your designer vs chance argument does not even offer two alternatives. It is a single choice and a mirror image. Your alleged logic of order requiring a designer is not logic at all, but an article of faith. It is a restatement of the "if there is a clock there must be a clockmaker" non-argument that is convincing to no one save the faithful. .

Only your opinion. There are two choices. Heads or tails. One coin.

Quote by: RickSp If you are arguing that there is a God who set all things in motion, then the argument reverts to the old "First Cause" debate - if all things have a cause then God is the First Cause. And the age old rejoiner is "and what was the cause of God?" If the reply is "God has no cause," then the question becomes "then why must the universe have a cause?".

Theology: God has no beginning. Science: the universe has a beginning.

I

Quote by: RickSp f you see God in order, fine. That is your faith. Just try to imagine how others can observe the the complexity and order of the universe with wonder and awe without your God or your dogma being interposed.

Works for me. Good for you.

[SNPete]

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] Well, maybe the bible shouldnt be taken so literally. .

You have a point with Genesis 1

Regarding the first part of Genesis:

I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates.

The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.

As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind. Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.

For me science gives us the How. Religion gives us the Why

[RickSp]

Quote by: SNPete I could say the same to you re the perspective. BTW, I became a christian at age 24. I was raised atheist..

You can say wahtever you want. I became an aethist at 13. I was a church youth group leader at the time.

Quote by: SNPete Yes, but this does not rule out a creator.

Order neither requires nor precludes a creator. Of course since you are arguing the existence of the unproven, yours is the burden of proof. The randomness you refer to has nothing to do with the discussion.

Quote by: SNPete Only your opinion. There are two choices. Heads or tails. One coin.

By continuing to suggest that the only alternative to your particular cosmology is random chance, you are playing with a double headed coin. Not a game I want to play.

Quote by: SNPete Theology: God has no beginning. Science: the universe has a beginning.

A good example why the two should be kept seperate.

Quote by: SNPete IWorks for me. God for you.

Unless that was a typo, as in "good for you", all I can say is that I have tried that brand of soap and it doesn't wash.

[SNPete]

Quote by: RickSp Order neither requires nor precludes a creator. Of course since you are arguing the existence of the unproven, yours is the burden of proof. .

Burden of proof? This thread is asking the nontheist to provide evidence of his view of origins. So far none.

Quote by: RickSp . Unless that was a typo, as in "good for you", all I can say is that I have tried that brand of soap and it doesn't wash.

Was a typo. Should have been Good for you.

[RickSp]

Quote by: SNPete Burden of proof? This thread is asking the nontheist to provide evidence of his view of origins. So far none.

That isn't accurate. Your specific question was " What evidence do you have that proves that the universe came to be by random chance?" Who would be foolish enough to argue that point? Yet, you claim that that is the only alternative to your argument from design. It isn't. Obviously.

Again, you are playing with a two headed coin. Order does not require design. Repeated assertion to the contrary doesn't make it so.

[SNPete]

Quote by: RickSp That isn't accurate. Your specific question was " What evidence do you have that proves that the universe came to be by random chance?" Who would be foolish enough to argue that point? .

Quite so, becasue there is no proof and everyone knows it.

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete I agree that many things like lightning have been shown to have a physical cause. What this guy is saying it is better to believe that ther is no God until we have proof. That is fine for him. My experience and the subjective evidence that I am billions have experience tell us otherwise.Answered prayer, healings, guidance and peace of mind in time of trouble, etc. That sort of thing.

are you saying billions of people experienced the subjective evidence of god, which leads you to believe the idea of the Christian god is objective? Like you said, all of this is subjective, so why even bother converting those whos prayers were never answered.

Let people handle their own problems. Less talk and more evidence would be much more effective for your cause, no? I mean if Jesus never healed anybody, then nobody would of believed in him.

But that is not the point of this thread. What is happening here is the classic tactic to derail the point when one has no answer to the question asked. No one has evidence to support a nontheistic view of origins. So let's talk about something else. Oh well. Bottom line is that there is no evidence. So I say the atheist has no evidence to support his or her view. Logic yes. Subjective evidence that seem to indicate nontheistic origins, yes.

yes but a scientist's goal is to be OBJECTIVE, thus a scientific theory explains reality objectivly, not subjectivly. Oddly enough, theists have a problem with the way scientists go about explaining reality (ie evolution, big bang theory)

Because this has been the pattern for Cosmology and Physics. For example: In 1900, glalxies were unknown. Then we discovered ther were other galaxies. But wait, these galaxies seem to be moving away, how come?

This is true, however, how come you did not question further? I mean, is it not obvious that the galaxies could of been moving away since the begining of time and space? Why did you skip this idea in your critical thinking process?

I don't want to be redundant or anything, but....

Quote by: Sonart There it is. Simply because we may not know something does not mean it's not knowable or that we won't know it in the future.

Do you still disagree?

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete Quite so, becasue there is no proof and everyone knows it.

Nope, there is no proof - this is why there is a split between people.


some people choose to have faith that there is already proof via supernatural miracles, and some people choose to discover the proof empirically.

Oddly enough, the two groups fight each other. I wonder why?

[SNPete]

Quote by: rez Nope, there is no proof - this is why there is a split between people. some people choose to have faith that there is already proof via supernatural miracles, and some people choose to discover the proof empirically. Oddly enough, the two groups fight each other. I wonder why?

Well said. Now I must go to work.

[Dirty Name]

I think you have no evidence to support a nontheist view of origins and you are resorting to dismissive language to hide behind.

Ahh...the very essense of RickSP. Nicely said.

[Dirty Name]

Oddly enough, theists have a problem with the way scientists go about explaining reality (ie evolution, big bang theory)

I think you are guilty of overgeneralization here. Not all "theists" have a problem with science. But it's ridiculous to accept the Big Bang Theory on it's face as evidence that Creation is a myth. To the contrary, the Big Bang Theory sounds an awful lot like the creation story. I think the two go hand in hand. Evolution too, to some degree.