1 edit
Originally posted by vivify“...And my statement that there's also no way to show it was inevitable still stands as well. ...”
James Cameron's Titanic is based on a true story. Does that make it a true story?
[i][b]“...There's ALSO no scientific way to show that it was inevitable. ...”(my emphasis)
That doesn't contradict what I just said: “ALSO” is the operative word here. Therefore my claim that “nobody who has fully understood the science of modern-day cosmology would ...[text shortened]... nd my statement that there's also no way to show it was inevitable still stands as well.[/b]
how does that contradict what I just said? I never claimed nor believed that it is definitely the case that it is inevitable.
You originally implied that you think science claims that everything came into existence by chance with your quote “This said, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance. “.
So to correct this misunderstanding, I pointed out to you (twice now) that this is simply not true and you haven't given any counterargument to imply that science claims that everything came into existence by chance. Science neither says everything came into existence by chance nor does it say that everything was inevitable.
Originally posted by Proper KnobAs I've said a million times already, not every single aspect of universe needed a designer. Random things definately (and must) have happened. It's the extent of what randomness can create that is limited, which is why at some point, a designer is needed.
****BUMP****
If our universe needed a designer for it to exist, how did the designer come about? Who created it?
As for the designer(s), either it (or they) always existed, or the designer(s) randomly evolved over time. It's most likely the latter option.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI didn't imply that science "claimed" anything. YOU suggested I did.
“...And my statement that there's also no way to show it was inevitable still stands as well. ...”
how does that contradict what I just said? I never claimed nor believed that it is definitely the case that it is inevitable.
You originally implied that you think science claims that everything came into existence by chance with your quote “This ...[text shortened]... says everything came into existence by chance nor does it say that everything was inevitable.
Originally posted by vivifyAs I've said a million times already, not every single aspect of universe needed a designer.
As I've said a million times already, not every single aspect of universe needed a designer. Random things definately (and must) have happened. It's the extent of what randomness can create that is limited, which is why at some point, a designer is needed.
As for the designer(s), either it (or they) always existed, or the designer(s) randomly evolved over time. It's most likely the latter option.
I know, i'm just trying to gauge who or what these so called designers are and how they/it came into existence.
It's the extent of what randomness can create that is limited.
So what in your view is designed and what happened randomly?
1 edit
Originally posted by vivify“...I think you missed my point; that just because something is "possible", that doesn't make it logical. While it's "possible" that Mt. Rushmore can be designed by CHANCE, ...”
I think you missed my point; that just because something is "possible", that doesn't make it logical. While it's "possible" that Mt. Rushmore can be designed by chance, with errosion of the mountain happening in JUST the right places, it's not logical to think this will ever happen.
the structure of the universe looks nothing like Mt. Rushmore but rather looks like what scientists predict it would look like from their models of how the universe evolves according to the laws of physics.
“...with erosion of the mountain happening in JUST the right places ...”
Assuming the existence of true randomness (and I am not claiming that it does exist) , the chances of something forming randomly EXACTLY the way it did is vanishingly small.
But something forming randomly will still form the way it formed.
I can shuffle a stack of cards and deal them out and point out the fact that the chances of dealing out that EXACT order of cards I dealt out would be vanishingly small -one in a zillion chance. But that was no miracle because I still dealt out the cards I did and it was inevitable that what I dealt out would have a vanishingly small chance of being exactly so.
4 edits
Originally posted by vivify"This said, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance."
I didn't imply that science "claimed" anything. YOU suggested I did.
why did you say this if you didn't think that science claims that the universe "happened completely through chance”?
Originally posted by vivifyI never claimed that our universe was equivalent to my string of numbers, and this is because the universe is not purely random. I think we both would agree with this. So you are essentially trying to set up a strawman.
Where your post falls apart, is in creating a random string of numbers with no order. This misrepresents our universe, because if it indeed had no order like your string of numbers, we couldn't study it, make predictions on it, or understand any part of it even in the least.
I have already said a number of times that the structure of the universe is due to the laws of physics which most definitely do not result in a totally random result.
Place two atoms in a black box and they will come together due to gravity. They will move along very well defined paths according to the laws of motion. They will not simply pop into and out of existence all over the place at random.
If our universe was indeed like your random string of numbers, you'd have a point; but since our universe is much more like a string of sixes (having order), your post fails.
But your claim regarding the string of sixes was a claim regarding the outcome of randomness. As I have said, the order in our universe is not a result of pure randomness, and nobody thinks that it is. That is a strawman on your part.
Originally posted by vivifyAnd the designers you are looking for are called the laws of physics. Why you think they need to be intelligent is what you need to explain.
As I've said a million times already, not every single aspect of universe needed a designer. Random things definately (and must) have happened. It's the extent of what randomness can create that is limited, which is why at some point, a designer is needed.
Originally posted by Proper KnobAtoms are designed. Asteroids are not.
[b]As I've said a million times already, not every single aspect of universe needed a designer.
I know, i'm just trying to gauge who or what these so called designers are and how they/it came into existence.
It's the extent of what randomness can create that is limited.
So what in your view is designed and what happened randomly?[/b]
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou're missing the point again. I bring up Mt. Rushmore, because it has human faces on it that very clearly defined. That clearly defined human faces (any faces) would be an ANY mountain, is a laughable stretch of the imagination, if we assume this can happen without ID.
“...I think you missed my point; that just because something is "possible", that doesn't make it logical. While it's "possible" that Mt. Rushmore can be designed by CHANCE, ...”
the structure of the universe looks nothing like Mt. Rushmore but rather looks like what scientists predict it would look like from their models of how the universe evolv ...[text shortened]... evitable that what I dealt out would have a vanishingly small chance of being exactly so.
2 edits
Originally posted by vivifyWhat is a “a laughable stretch of the imagination”?
You're missing the point again. I bring up Mt. Rushmore, because it has human faces on it that very clearly defined. That clearly defined human faces (any faces) would be an ANY mountain, is a laughable stretch of the imagination, if we assume this can happen without ID.
That there is a Mt. Rushmore ?
If so, we are not denying that Mt. Rushmore was made with ID -we KNOW it was man-made. Therefore we KNOW it was not made by a god.
If not, then who is claiming that there are or credibly could be inexplicable human faces on mountains that are not man-made? We are not. We are not claiming anything like that.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBecause order of such a high magnitude (like the universe) is completely random if there's no ID, regardless of what some scientists say.
"This said, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance."
why did you say this if you didn't think that science claims that the universe "happened completely through chance”?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think you're being intentionally dense. That such order in as the faces on mount Rushmore would ever randomly appear in any Mountain is beyond reasonable logic.
What is a “a laughable stretch of the imagination”?
That there is a Mt. Rushmore ?
If so, we are not denying that Mt. Rushmore was made with ID -we KNOW it was man-made. Therefore we KNOW it was not made by a god.
If not, then who is claiming that there are or credibly could be inexplicable human faces on mountains that are not man-made? We are not. We are not claiming anything like that.