chance

[Mr P]

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

That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, what if there's a third option? In between random chance and intentionality there is natural consequence.

[spinoza99]

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.

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

Who says the Big Bang was the result of chance? We don't know what it was the result of.

If you don't know what the Big Bang was the result of, then you're an agnostic. As an atheist. You have to believe it was an accident.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What evidence do the atheists have that we are here by chance?

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

You appear to have your burden of proof on backwards, Spinoza. No serious scientist looks for evidence of a null hypothesis.

[spinoza99]

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

That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, what if there's a third option? In between random chance and intentionality there is natural consequence.

False dichotomies have the structure, either x or y

True dichotomies have the structure, either x or not x.

Either the universe was the result of chance or it was not the result of chance.

Not chance = intention.

If you can think of a third way, let me know.

[Animavore]

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.

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

Who says the Big Bang was the result of chance? We don't know what it was the result of.

If you don't know what the Big Bang was the result of, then you're an agnostic. As an atheist. You have to believe it was an accident.

No I don't. I just don't have to believe a god, any god, did it.

Also, you speak as if a god doing it means it was done on purpose but it could just as easily mean that a god done it by mistake, like when you spill over a glass of water, so saying a god did it does not get you out of saying it happened by chance.

[Mr P]

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

That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, what if there's a third option? In between random chance and intentionality there is natural consequence.

False dichotomies have the structure, either x or y

True dichotomies have the structure, either x or not x.

Either the universe was the result of chance or it was not the result of chance.

Not chance = intention.

If you can think of a third way, let me know.

The problem boils down to symmetry breaking. During the initial phase of universal expansion (the Planck era) all forces of nature are hypothesised to have been of equal value (see supersymmetry), discovering how these forces settled in to their current values is one of the biggest goals of modern physics and there may yet be an underlying mechanism that predicts these values. The simple answer is no-one knows yet, so to limit any response to just two options puts a limit on enquiry.

[spinoza99]

all them had chance meetings, chanced to fall in love or lust, chanced to fuck, and the lucky sperm needed for me to ultimately come into existence 2 generations down the line
I'm here by chance.

You're not here completely by chance. You're here due to the intelligence of intentional beings. You're parents did meet by chance, but it was intelligence that enabled them to conceive you.

[spinoza99]

there may yet be an underlying mechanism that predicts these values.

Then you would just have to ask where did the underlying mechanism come from? By chance or not by chance?

[spinoza99]

it could just as easily mean that a god done it by mistake, like when you spill over a glass of water, so saying a god did it does not get you out of saying it happened by chance.

We can use the argument from analogy to answer that question. How often do mistakes create extremely fine-tuned designs in our world? Almost never. Therefore it is logical to assume that the universe was not the result of a mistake. There is always that possibility that it is the result of a mistake, but we have no evidence for mistakes producing amazing designs. To believe that the universe is the result of a mistake is to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

[Mr P]

there may yet be an underlying mechanism that predicts these values.

Then you would just have to ask where did the underlying mechanism come from? By chance or not by chance?

They could simply emerge as a natural consequence of the fabric of reality, for instance in the same way that general relativity does. Stop limiting yourself to unecessary constraints and open your mind.

[Animavore]

it could just as easily mean that a god done it by mistake, like when you spill over a glass of water, so saying a god did it does not get you out of saying it happened by chance.

We can use the argument from analogy to answer that question. How often do mistakes create extremely fine-tuned designs in our world? Almost never. Therefore it is logical to assume that the universe was not the result of a mistake. There is always that possibility that it is the result of a mistake, but we have no evidence for mistakes producing amazing designs. To believe that the universe is the result of a mistake is to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

That's not the correct analogy. The correct one is how often to we see things in nature arise because of natural processes - answer is all the time. From mountain ranges to sand dunes to living organisms.
How often do we see things in nature arise through supernatural processes - the answer is never.

400 years ago you would've been saying that earthquakes are caused by a god being angry. We now know what causes that as well as a host of other things that were attributed to purposeful, celestial beings so people like you are beaten all the way back to beyond what we don't know. But what happens if we discover the natural processes that give rise to big bangs? Then you move back further into what we don't know and so on. It's a tiresome little game which has never helped our understanding of anything.

[spinoza99]

there may yet be an underlying mechanism that predicts these values.

Then you would just have to ask where did the underlying mechanism come from? By chance or not by chance?

They could simply emerge as a natural consequence of the fabric of reality, for instance in the same way that general relativity does. .

Then you would just have to ask where did the fabric of reality come from. By chance or not by chance?

[Mr P]

there may yet be an underlying mechanism that predicts these values.

Then you would just have to ask where did the underlying mechanism come from? By chance or not by chance?

They could simply emerge as a natural consequence of the fabric of reality, for instance in the same way that general relativity does. .

Then you would just have to ask where did the fabric of reality come from. By chance or not by chance?

Well in that case it's turtles all the way down.

[spinoza99]

how often to we see things in nature arise because of natural processes - answer is all the time. From mountain ranges to sand dunes to living organisms.
How often do we see things in nature arise through supernatural processes - the answer is never.

You're just assuming that things are the result of natural processes, you're not providing any proof. How about language. How is that the result of natural processes? What natural laws cause me to write these exact words on this screen? No laws do it, because laws have a for every one input there is one output structure. The number of different sentences I can write is infinite so I really don't see how there can be a law that can specify for an infinite number of outputs. Moreover, the ratio of correct sentences to incorrect sentences is also infinite. So how do natural laws even "know" what a correct sentence is. The answer is they can't, because laws have no knowledge.

what happens if we discover the natural processes that give rise to big bangs? Then you move back further into what we don't know and so on. It's a tiresome little game which has never helped our understanding of anything.

Then we would just ask where did the natural processes come from? By chance or not by chance.

By the way, this thread is asking for evidence that we are here by chance. So far I haven't gotten any.

[spinoza99]

there may yet be an underlying mechanism that predicts these values.

Then you would just have to ask where did the underlying mechanism come from? By chance or not by chance?

They could simply emerge as a natural consequence of the fabric of reality, for instance in the same way that general relativity does. .

Then you would just have to ask where did the fabric of reality come from. By chance or not by chance?

Well in that case it's turtles all the way down.

No, it's not turtles all the way. Actually, I believe the first turtle arose by chance, that was mind or intention/intelligence. The second turtle (the Big Bang) was the result of the first turtle's intention. The atheist on the other hand, by definition cannot believe that that the Big Bang was the result of intention.