Origins. By Random Chance?

[SNPete]

On other forums and this one some posters hold the view that the universe came to be by random chance. In regards to the issue of Origins, I have heard many logical arguments to support views on both sides of the issue. However, logic is not evidence. Logic is not proof.

We have evidence to support the Big Bang theory. We have proof that the dinosaurs existed. Yet, I have not seen any scientific evidence to prove the view that the universe came to be by random chance.

My question to the folks who hold the view that the universe came to be through random chance is: What evidence do you have that proves that the universe came to be by random chance?

[LetThereBe]

I should ask first for a definition of random chance. I don't think many even among atheists would argue "random chance" by some definitions.

[SNPete]

Quote by: LetThereBe I should ask first for a definition of random chance. I don't think many even among atheists would argue "random chance" by some definitions.

Random is defined as: without any guidance or influence by an outside agent or factor.

Chance is defined by Webster as something that happens without an apparent cause.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Hmm... I think the concept of "random" is as redundant as a monkey learning to press a button. usually things that we consider random are patterns or systems we do not yet understand. i dont think anything is really random as much as a rock is a rock.

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete On other forums and this one some posters hold the view that the universe came to be by random chance. In regards to the issue of Origins, I have heard many logical arguments to support views on both sides of the issue. However, logic is not evidence. Logic is not proof. We have evidence to support the Big Bang theory. We have proof that the dinosaurs existed. Yet, I have not seen any scientific evidence to prove the view that the universe came to be by random chance. My question to the folks who hold the view that the universe came to be through random chance is: What evidence do you have that proves that the universe came to be by random chance?

actually there is a logical answer and that is "I do not know!"


because nobody knows, not even you Pete.

and there is even some evidence to support the "I do not know" response.

Humans figure out reality through the use of nature. We tend to discover new things all the time. These new discoveries create steping stones to explain more things that humans would of never known if it had not been for the previous discoveries.

As of right now, humans have made a lot of discoveries, however, we are not done. Because the steping stones are no where near completition, we are simply left with finding out the next steping stone. Although, we can ask questions about the "last" steping stones (answers to the creation of the universe etc) they are indeed opinions. Of course, this is true to all humans - not one human on earth knows the ultimate answer, because the "steping stone project" is INCOMPLETE.

Is this hard to understand Pete?

[Sonart]

Quote by: rez actually there is a logical answer and that is "I do not know!"

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

.

[SNPete]

Quote by: rez actually there is a logical answer and that is "I do not know!" because nobody knows, not even you Pete. and there is even some evidence to support the "I do not know" response. Humans figure out reality through the use of nature. We tend to discover new things all the time. These new discoveries create steping stones to explain more things that humans would of never known if it had not been for the previous discoveries. As of right now, humans have made a lot of discoveries, however, we are not done. Because the steping stones are no where near completition, we are simply left with finding out the next steping stone. Although, we can ask questions about the "last" steping stones (answers to the creation of the universe etc) they are indeed opinions. Of course, this is true to all humans - not one human on earth knows the ultimate answer, because the "steping stone project" is INCOMPLETE. Is this hard to understand Pete?

My, my. Aren't we touchy today.

Well I am glad you admit that "I don't know". Much better than the pronouncement that it could not have been God.

But really what I am after is evidence. You see, neither side on the issues of origins, can come up any solid objective evidence to prove one's view. Without solid evidence on a notheistic view of origns there is reason to suppose that saying God did it is any less rational than saying God did not do it.

And who knows what the future holds? For all we know future discoveries may create more questions than answers. That does seem to be the case so far. What is seen as chaos today, could well turn out to order in the future as we better understand things.

By using logic, order points to a creator. By using logic, chaos points to chance.

[RickSp]

The only folks who I have ever heard claim that the universe resultes from "random chance" are creationists looking for an easy straw man to knock down. The sun doesn't move through the sky by random chance. Neither does it require the intervention of a god to guide it across the sky. Both claims seem equally ridiculous.

The sun and indeed the universe as a whole function by natural processes. If you want to find the divine in the natural, that is your business. Just please don't waste our time with the "random chance" silliness.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: SNPete My, my. Aren't we touchy today. Well I am glad you admit that "I don't know". Much better than the pronouncement that it could not have been God. But really what I am after is evidence. You see, neither side on the issues of origins, can come up any solid objective evidence to prove one's view. Without solid evidence on a notheistic view of origns there is reason to suppose that saying God did it is any less rational than saying God did not do it. And who knows what the future holds? For all we know future discoveries may create more questions than answers. That does seem to be the case so far. What is seen as chaos today, could well turn out to order in the future as we better understand things. By using logic, order points to a creator. By using logic, chaos points to chance.

Pete, why are you using a "Bob" icon, which is used by a parody religion created to... well, parody religion?

[SNPete]

Quote by: Son of Belial Pete, why are you using a "Bob" icon, which is used by a parody religion created to... well, parody religion?

Because: I like it.

I was actually looking for the original Clip Art version of Bob, but couldn't find it. I ran across the Church of the Sub Genius in my search. Ahh, brings back memories of my Hippie past. Anyway, I think it's a cool Icon. I use it for the sake of art, not theology. I do have a sense of humor.

BTW I see the debating on this forum in need of humor at times!

And what about your Avatar? Also your handle, kinda anti JudeoChristian. Not that I have an issue with it, just curious.

[SNPete]

Quote by: RickSp The only folks who I have ever heard claim that the universe resultes from "random chance" are creationists looking for an easy straw man to knock down. The sun doesn't move through the sky by random chance. Neither does it require the intervention of a god to guide it across the sky. Both claims seem equally ridiculous. The sun and indeed the universe as a whole function by natural processes. If you want to find the divine in the natural, that is your business. Just please don't waste our time with the "random chance" silliness.

If you think I am wasting your time then why are you wasting your time responding? I think you have no evidence to support a nontheist view of origins and you are resorting to dismissive language to hide behind.

It is interesting that you find the chance view of origins as being a straw man. Straw man: a fake scenerio set up to prove a point, because it is easy to refute.

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???

BTW Random Chance seems to be the best wording of a nontheist view of origns. I came upwith this term after a semantic battle with atheists and scientists on another forum while discussing origins. Can you suggest a better term?

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete My, my. Aren't we touchy today.

I hope I did not come off as such.

Without solid evidence on a notheistic view of origns there is reason to suppose that saying God did it is any less rational than saying God did not do it.

For some reason you skiped Sonart's wonderful post, but i'll let it go...

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.

and here is the wonderful quote Sonart provided to help further the point.

"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

And who knows what the future holds?

Thats right, nobody knows. That is why humans should stick to what has given us advancments and answers - science.

For all we know future discoveries may create more questions than answers.

Future discoveries create questions, and then they are answered by more discoveries one step at a time. Are you suggesting humans should stay ignorant, so they do not have to answer questions? Should humans stop advancing in this century because the Christian faith said so? What about when Christians were actually dominate in Europe some time ago - Why didnt they suggest never advancing during their time? Are they bad christians?

That does seem to be the case so far. What is seen as chaos today, could well turn out to order in the future as we better understand things.

Could you provide an example of something that was thought of as chaos in the past and then turned out to be consider order presently?

By using logic, order points to a creator. By using logic, chaos points to chance.

so wait, even though Starboy proved the watchmaker argument wrong, you still insist on believing in it?

The difference between me and you is that, to me, the universe is huge VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY BIG and to you the universe is small.

For some reason I understand that the universe is billions of years old, thus giving an abundent amount of chances for chaos to turn into order. Why don't you understand or agree with that?

[rez]

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???

the universe is infinite just like the discription of your god (always was and always will be) However, because humans have the tool of consciousness there is reason to believe (if humans even live long enough) that humans can become the god they always looked up to. Remember if the universe is infinite then humans have an infinite amount of time to do an infinite amount of discoverying.

BTW Random Chance seems to be the best wording of a nontheist view of origns. I came upwith this term after a semantic battle with atheists and scientists on another forum while discussing origins. Can you suggest a better term?

the universe is complex. Can that be a third alternative "I dont know"?

[Jack]

Randomness does not imply chaos. It pertains to the order of things; randomness suggests no particular order. Chaos would relate to the organization of things.
Since we weren't there and thus have no idea of how creation was organized or ordered, I'd agree with "I don't know" as the best answer I could give.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: SNPete Because: I like it. I was actually looking for the original Clip Art version of Bob, but couldn't find it. I ran across the Church of the Sub Genius in my search. Ahh, brings back memories of my Hippie past. Anyway, I think it's a cool Icon. I use it for the sake of art, not theology. I do have a sense of humor.

I wasn't trying to harass you, but when I first saw it, I assumed you were not a Christian because of it.

BTW I see the debating on this forum in need of humor at times!

I agree wholeheartedly.

And what about your Avatar? Also your handle, kinda anti JudeoChristian. Not that I have an issue with it, just curious.

My avatar is something I created based on the "Illuminati" pyramid/eye thing. Just a design. No deep significant meaning. You know where the handle comes from.

1 Samuel 2:12
Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they cared nothing for Yahweh.

[Sonart]

Quote by: SNPete But really what I am after is evidence. You see, neither side on the issues of origins, can come up any solid objective evidence to prove one's view. Without solid evidence on a notheistic view of origns there is reason to suppose that saying God did it is any less rational than saying God did not do it.

You say you're after evidence, yet you require absolutley none to claim that God or some undefined 'Intelligence' created everything. Now if you like, I'll come right out and say that there is absolutely nothing rational about suggesting that God did anything, because I'm absolutely positive, beyond all doubt, that there's no such thing as gods, spirits, ghosts, demons and anything else supernatural. But since I can't possibly prove it, it plays no part of any scientific debate for me.

The origin of life, on the other hand, has many different possible scientific explanations. All that's necessary is the accumulation of additional empirical evidence, and I can pretty much guarantee we'll be seeing that long before we see any empiracal proof of the existance of gods.

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???

Sure... random events guided by the intrinsic laws of nature.

Quote by: rez For some reason you skiped Sonart's wonderful post, but i'll let it go...

Thanks. I get a lot of that.

Quote by: Isherwood Randomness does not imply chaos. It pertains to the order of things; randomness suggests no particular order. Chaos would relate to the organization of things.

Indeed. Chaos theory suggests that randomness often seeks order, particularly when you apply physical constraints... gravity, etc.

.

[SNPete]

Quote by: rez IThe difference between me and you is that, to me, the universe is huge VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY BIG and to you the universe is small. For some reason I understand that the universe is billions of years old, thus giving an abundent amount of chances for chaos to turn into order. Why don't you understand or agree with that?

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?

[SNPete]

Quote by: Sonart You say you're after evidence, yet you require absolutley none to claim that God or some undefined 'Intelligence' created everything. .

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.

My point is that if the nontheists cannot supply objective evidence to prove their view, suddenly the playing field is level. Then one can argue that the nontheist position is just as irrational as the theist position. Or as rational.

I think I am right. You think you are right. That is fine. Mutual respect is a good thing. Do you agree?

[Sonart]

Quote by: SNPete My point is that if the nontheists cannot supply objective evidence to prove their view, suddenly the playing field is level. Then one can argue that the nontheist position is just as irrational as the theist position. Or as rational.

I just did. I provided a link that listed half a dozen different non-theist theories on the origin of life on earth. I'm assuming that each theory is based on some body of evidence compelling enough for each school to advance their particular theory. If you're more curious, help yourself... I'm sure that detailed information on each theory is readily availabe on the Internet.

Quote by: SNPete I think I am right. You think you are right. That is fine. Mutual respect is a good thing. Do you agree?

Right up to the point where you seek to advance your ideas on the American people as science. Science is science, and religion knows jack about science, so let's keep the two apart, shall we?

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??

And are you assuming that liberals are not religious, or more specifically, not Christians? Granted, I'm certainly not, but I'm not all liberals, not by a longshot. It does seem to be a fact, however, that it's the more conservative, more fundamentalist Christians who seem to be the ones pushing Creationism and it's stealth counterpart, Intelligent Design. There are many Christian denomonations that have no problem whatsoever with the concept of evolution. Those that do tend to be among the more fundamentalist. Do you disagree?

.

[SNPete]

Quote by: Sonart I just did. I provided a link that listed half a dozen different non-theist theories on the origin of life on earth. I'm assuming that each theory is based on some body of evidence compelling enough for each school to advance their particular theory. If you're more curious, help yourself... I'm sure that detailed information on each theory is readily availabe on the Internet..

I viewed the link. Nice theories. I especially like the outerspace origin idea. So where did the life from outerspace originate from? It simply adds a layer of speculation. No evidence, just speculation.

Quote by: Sonart And are you assuming that liberals are not religious, or more specifically, not Christians? Granted, I'm certainly not, but I'm not all liberals, not by a longshot. It does seem to be a fact, however, that it's the more conservative, more fundamentalist Christians who seem to be the ones pushing Creationism and it's stealth counterpart, Intelligent Design. There are many Christian denomonations that have no problem whatsoever with the concept of evolution. Those that do tend to be among the more fundamentalist. Do you disagree?.

No, I see your point and agree, but if you dig below the retoric you will find that the real issue is whether or not God created the universe. I too have no issue with theistic evolution.

BTW. No evidence yet to support a nontheistic view of origins,. Forgive me if I sound like a broken record. Just trying to keep the thread on track.