chance

[Animavore]

Then why do you call yourself an atheist? Is there a possibility that it was the result of intention?

Oh course there is. I just put the possibility down so low that it is the last thing I would look at after everything else has been ruled out. But like it turned out earthquakes aren't the result of intention I don't, at this stage, expect anything else to.

Then why do you know that it's caused by purely material means.

FFS! Do I have to continually repeat myself?
I don't know why we have language but given that everything else we once thought was caused by supernatural means turned out to be a consequence of purely natural means I see no reason why language won't turn out to be either.
Only after the natural has been ruled out do we even begin to posit a supernatural explanation. I mean for Christ's sake. If we all thought like you we'd still be sacrificing virgins to make sure the sun rose the next day.

You've already admitted that you don't know where language comes from. Therefore you're reasoning is as follows:
1. I don't know where language comes from
2. Therefore, I know it does not come from non-material sources.

WRONG!!! The reasoning goes
1. Natural explanations have always superseded supernatural explanations.
2. Supernatural explanations have never superseded natural explanations.
3. Therefore; in all probability this trend will continue to happen.

I already did, language,

Is reading comprehension something you find difficult? I asked you to give me an example of a natural explanation that turned out to be supernatural. What is the past natural explanation for language which has now been superseded by a supernatural explanation?

I don't know but I know that everything has a material cause.

Waffle. I never claimed knowledge. I was speaking in likelihood. You're the one making knowledge claims.

[Mr P]

You are asking for evidence for the null hypothesis - which is the default position that one adopts when there is no evidence for anything else! YOU are the one that is claiming that there is anything other than random chance at the heart of the universe - the burden of proof is therefore on YOU.
Unless I am shown clear evidence that there is any causal mechanism at work, I will default to chance - that is not the same as BELIEVING it is chance, simply a state of having no reason to think otherwise.

Chance is not the default hypothesis for origins of worlds. What makes you think chance is the default hypothesis? Every phenomenon is the result of chance, natural law or design. None of the three hold as a default hypothesis for any phenomenon.

If you want my honest opinion, the only evidence we have for whether the Big Bang was the result of chance or not is the enormous fine-tuning. Lambda, for example, must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, to give you an idea of how large that is, there are 80 orders of magnitude for atoms in the universe.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... stant.html

Ah. The fine-tuned universe argument. I think Adams' puddle answers that one satisfactorily enough. The fact that we are here because the laws of physics allow it does not imply that the laws of physics were in any way designed with us in mind, or even that they were designed at all, only that, being what they are, the laws of physics allow our kind of life in our kind of universe to exist.

I think Spinoza99 may have a little trouble working out the sequence involved in cause and effect.

[spinoza99]

You are asking for evidence for the null hypothesis - which is the default position that one adopts when there is no evidence for anything else! YOU are the one that is claiming that there is anything other than random chance at the heart of the universe - the burden of proof is therefore on YOU.
Unless I am shown clear evidence that there is any causal mechanism at work, I will default to chance - that is not the same as BELIEVING it is chance, simply a state of having no reason to think otherwise.

Chance is not the default hypothesis for origins of worlds. What makes you think chance is the default hypothesis? Every phenomenon is the result of chance, natural law or design. None of the three hold as a default hypothesis for any phenomenon.

If you want my honest opinion, the only evidence we have for whether the Big Bang was the result of chance or not is the enormous fine-tuning. Lambda, for example, must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, to give you an idea of how large that is, there are 80 orders of magnitude for atoms in the universe.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... stant.html

How do you know that there is no underlying mechanism that controls this.

Then you just ask where did that mechanism come from. Finally you go back to the first cause. The first cause must be unintended because if something caused the first cause, then it's not the first cause because then you're stuck with what was the cause of that something. Good so both atheists and I agree that the first thing arose by chance. However, where I differ with atheists is that the atheist believes that mind was the not the first thing. The first cause must be the appearance of mind which has the power to author natural laws and the properties of material. Chance cannot cause order except on very rare occasions but in our universe order arises often not rarely. Before the Big Bang mind had to exist because the Big Bang gave rise to order.

What evidence do the atheists have that the Big Bang was the result of chance? So far I haven't seen any.

What evidence do theists have? Fine-tuning.


The first cause can be the result of chance, after all, before you get any cause you need an intention. But chance cannot cause order. For that you need a mind. The first cause can be due to chance but before you get to the Big Bang you need to eventually have a cause which is

In order for a universe with order to exist you need two things: minds and matter. Mechanisms, we'll assume, are synonyms for natural laws, such as gravity. Matter moves in accord with natural law. Mind does not. In order for order to arise in our universe, you need a mind that has knowledge of how to achieve order. The mind has the power to fine-tune the laws such that life can appear. The natural laws require too much fine-tuning to be the product of chance.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why assume that there is only one universe? Or that the laws of physics are identical in every universe? Or even that they remain constant in this one?

Big bangs could be happening all of the time, creating universe after universe each with its own laws and behaviours - on some life exists, on some it cannot, others collapse back into the hole they came out of in less time than it takes to say 'quantum'. I couldn't claim to know if this is the case - but it's certainly no more far-fetched an idea than a great sky-daddy did it all just so that I could sit here sipping beer and wrangle with your terminally poor arguments.

[Svartalf]

no seriously WHY ?

Lame argument Lame thread Why ?

every troll must come out from under their bridge to feed

[Feck]

[spinoza99]

Ah. The fine-tuned universe argument. I think Adams' puddle answers that one satisfactorily enough. The fact that we are here because the laws of physics allow it does not imply that the laws of physics were in any way designed with us in mind, or even that they were designed at all, only that, being what they are, the laws of physics allow our kind of life in our kind of universe to exist.

As for "our kind of life in this universe," that's a fallacy. If the constants of OUR universe were off life would not exist because galaxies would not form. No serious scientist believes you can form life without a galaxy.

Second, what if there are other possible universes. First, we have no evidence of other universes, so to believe that there are other universes is to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But let's just imagine for the sake of argument that other universes are possible. After all, other languages are possible. You would need to fine tune those universes to an enormous degree. We have no reason to believe that life can arise in a different universe through cobbling together a few bits of material in any old fashion.

The laws of physics were built with us in mind because life is so radically different from non-life. That cannot be the result of chance. Why? Because chance is evenly distributed, the gulf between life and non-life is enormous and you can't just attribute that gulf to chance because those are not the traits of chance.

[Svartalf]

actually not, or the universe would be limited to earth, or be teeming with life rather than an immense void with relatively few islets with the adequate conditions.

[Feck]

You know you are wrong AGAIN don't you ,the above post (by Spinoza ) is drivel

[Mr P]

You are asking for evidence for the null hypothesis - which is the default position that one adopts when there is no evidence for anything else! YOU are the one that is claiming that there is anything other than random chance at the heart of the universe - the burden of proof is therefore on YOU.
Unless I am shown clear evidence that there is any causal mechanism at work, I will default to chance - that is not the same as BELIEVING it is chance, simply a state of having no reason to think otherwise.

Chance is not the default hypothesis for origins of worlds. What makes you think chance is the default hypothesis? Every phenomenon is the result of chance, natural law or design. None of the three hold as a default hypothesis for any phenomenon.

If you want my honest opinion, the only evidence we have for whether the Big Bang was the result of chance or not is the enormous fine-tuning. Lambda, for example, must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, to give you an idea of how large that is, there are 80 orders of magnitude for atoms in the universe.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... stant.html

How do you know that there is no underlying mechanism that controls this.

Then you just ask where did that mechanism come from. Finally you go back to the first cause. The first cause must be unintended because if something caused the first cause, then it's not the first cause because then you're stuck with what was the cause of that something. Good so both atheists and I agree that the first thing arose by chance. However, where I differ with atheists is that the atheist believes that mind was the not the first thing. The first cause must be the appearance of mind which has the power to author natural laws and the properties of material. Chance cannot cause order except on very rare occasions but in our universe order arises often not rarely. Before the Big Bang mind had to exist because the Big Bang gave rise to order.

What evidence do the atheists have that the Big Bang was the result of chance? So far I haven't seen any.

What evidence do theists have? Fine-tuning.


The first cause can be the result of chance, after all, before you get any cause you need an intention. But chance cannot cause order. For that you need a mind. The first cause can be due to chance but before you get to the Big Bang you need to eventually have a cause which is

In order for a universe with order to exist you need two things: minds and matter. Mechanisms, we'll assume, are synonyms for natural laws, such as gravity. Matter moves in accord with natural law. Mind does not. In order for order to arise in our universe, you need a mind that has knowledge of how to achieve order. The mind has the power to fine-tune the laws such that life can appear. The natural laws require too much fine-tuning to be the product of chance.

But you said this wasn't a first cause argument:

Just open your mind and embrace the possibility of other options. The universe isn't black and white and you shouldn't limit yourself to such narrow constraints.

This basically a first cause argument isn't it?

Mr P, saying "open your mind" is not a logical argument.

No, this is not a first cause argument. All atheists believe we are here by chance. What is there evidence for believing that?

Make your mind up please, or at least let us know where the goal posts are.


Busted

[Bella Fortuna]

Chances are.... because I wear a silly grin....




Sorry.

[spinoza99]

Why assume that there is only one universe?

I'll tell you why because I heed Betrand Russell's maxim: to only believe in things for which there is evidence. I need to build a philosophy on evidence not on imaginary or wished-for evidence.

But let's just imagine that there are other universes, after all, it's not completely wacky. There is no reason to believe:

1. there are multiple universes
2. therefore, order in this universe is the result of chance.

Take language.
1. There are 6000 languages
2. Therefore, to be or not to be is the result of chance.

It just doesn't follow.

chance cannot produce order consistently.

it's certainly no more far-fetched an idea than a great sky-daddy did it all

This is what I call the flying spaghetti monster fallacy which posits that there is just as much evidence for God as there is for the FSM. That's a fallacy.

Either the Big Bang was the result of chance or it wasn't. If it wasn't the result of chance then God exists. We have more evidence that the Big Bang was the result of an intention (fine-tuning) than we do for the FSM.

[Coito ergo sum]

By chance, I mean not the result of an intention or design.

Oh, you mean "undirected." Gotcha. You see, using the word "chance" can be deceiving because modern English usage of the word "by chance" is not really the same thing as saying "undesigned" or "unintentional." For example - planets don't revolve around the sun "by chance," but they do so in an undirected, unintentional, undesigned fashion - they move in accordance with the laws of motion and universal gravitation.

So, the question "What evidence do the atheists have that we are here by [not by the result of intention or design]?" Phrased that way, it's essentially a request to prove that intent or design does not exist, which is really a reversal of the burden of proof. We can never disprove that, because there is no way to say that even a completely randomly distributed universe wasn't designed to be that way. Some deity or entity may well have wanted a really screwy universe, or one that was made up only of cubes, or one that was made like ours. It's an unfalsifiable concept.

The scientific way to phrase the question is "What evidence is there that we were created by an intentional being or designer?" Answer - there is none. People, animals, plants, insects, water, dirt, rocks lava, crystals, planets, stars, comets, moons, galaxies....all of it... can be explained without reference to an intentional being or designer.

I would say that the fact that every system or phenomenon of which we are aware these days can come into being and exist without reference to a designer or creator being is a decent indicator toward there not being one. One would think that a being or designer would leave some stamp or indicator of its existence, or some clue that it is there. I haven't seen one. Granted, however, that this does not preclude a designer, necessarily. We could, as I mentioned, have a designer design the universe with any characteristics or qualities or none. It's like Hume wrote - the universe may have been committed by a team of deities, or a committee - or perhaps we are the creation of an infant deity, who created us as part of a game, and has now long since lost interest in us. None of that is precluded - there is just no reason to accept it as true.

[spinoza99]

actually not, or the universe would be limited to earth, or be teeming with life rather than an immense void with relatively few islets with the adequate conditions.

You need to have the stars separated far from each other, otherwise the supernovas will release too many gamma rays which will destroy life.

But I admit, I do find it a bit odd that there are so many failed stars out there.

[Coito ergo sum]

we're not here by chance, we're here by the work of natural laws and the fact that with time, even unlikely but wondrous effects can result from just that

You're just moving chance to a different location. Where did those natural laws come from? If you say they came from God then you're not an atheists. Therefore, you believe that chance produced the natural laws.

Only if you assume that "chaos" is what was there "before" (if there was a before) the universe came to be. Why assume that? Our only choices are not "chaos" or God.

Also, I'm not talking about abiogenesis. What I mean is what evidence is there that the Big Bang was the result of chance.

Well, you phrased the question by asking about how "we" came to be. "We" got here a long, long time after the big bang is theorized to have happened.