movement to atheism

@secondson said
"In an eternal universe, matter has always existed in one form or another."

If matter has always existed, then I would agree the universe is eternal, but matter being eternal is an assumption necessary to assert eternality onto matter. For evolution to be viable matter must be eternal, but we simply do not know that for certain. That's why evolution is only ...[text shortened]... nto the equation, design and intent immediately spring forth further dispelling the notion of chaos.

Please provide your evidence sir linking natural laws to divine influence.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
By the same premise, where is your evidence for an eternal deity?

Requires more faith to believe in a self created eternal universe than an eternal deity.

@dj2becker said
Requires more faith to believe in a self created eternal universe than an eternal deity.

Self-created?

What are you mumbling about?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Please provide your evidence sir linking natural laws to divine influence.

I don't think that comment is relative to anything in my post you're replying to.

The concept you're asserting that matter was in chaos, and that by chance through the random colliding of rocks planets formed, is nullified by the introduction of gravity into the theory.

Matter cannot be said to be in chaos when there is a force of influence on it.

Don't you think that's true?

Matter in chaos without a cause to influence a forming of said matter remains in chaos. Random chance notwithstanding.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Please provide your evidence sir linking natural laws to divine influence.

Well let’s see! From a bang or explosion if you believe in it that sort of thing, cast
countless amounts of matter and energy out to occupy time and space. Then with
nothing guiding anything at all, the formation of all things started to occur. All that
was flung out from the beginning space where the Bang or explosion occurred,
supposedly started forming all the parts that began solar systems. Exactly how
many solar systems have you seen arise from an explosion on earth, or anything
new and positive arise from an explosion? I’ve witnessed destruction never a
formation of something functionally new!

Using what unguided processes and forces can we see how everything like stars,
planets, moons and so on form, then fall into place so that they run with the
accuracy, precision, the timing of a watch. On top of that we also see the
formation of all manner of rocks, metals, soil, gases, water and all other liquids in
such ways that they could form environmental habitats, that then were able to
produce life with nothing but unguided processes. You are the one with the issues
at hand, I can point to how some intelligence can create something, can input
information into a system to cause things to occur and stop at the right times.

If the laws cannot produce what we see from beginning to now, than the laws are
not responsible for the creation of our universe, another cause is. If the natural
laws are responsible for the creation than those are some mighty fine tuned laws
don't you think?

@secondson said
I don't think that comment is relative to anything in my post you're replying to.

The concept you're asserting that matter was in chaos, and that by chance through the random colliding of rocks planets formed, is nullified by the introduction of gravity into the theory.

Matter cannot be said to be in chaos when there is a force of influence on it.

Don't you think t ...[text shortened]... thout a cause to influence a forming of said matter remains in chaos. Random chance notwithstanding.

"Matter cannot be said to be in chaos when there is a force of influence on it. "

No, I disagree with that. Chaos often operates within a large system of order. This is true on both the macro and micro level.

@dj2becker said
Requires more faith to believe in a self created eternal universe than an eternal deity.

Is your eternal God self-creating?!

@kellyjay said
Well let’s see! From a bang or explosion if you believe in it that sort of thing, cast
countless amounts of matter and energy out to occupy time and space. Then with
nothing guiding anything at all, the formation of all things started to occur. All that
was flung out from the beginning space where the Bang or explosion occurred,
supposedly started forming all the parts t ...[text shortened]...
laws are responsible for the creation than those are some mighty fine tuned laws
don't you think?

Yes, a God creating the world in several days, if you believe that sort of thing, is far more credible.

I will immediately abandon scientific reasoning.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yes, a God creating the world in several days, if you believe that sort of thing, is far more credible.

I will immediately abandon scientific reasoning.

I don't think faith and science will ever get along
like two twisted sisters
one dying and the other full of curiosity and the joy of discovery

@lemondrop said
I don't think faith and science will ever get along
like two twisted sisters
one dying and the other full of curiosity and the joy of discovery

Ooh, I like the sound of the second sister. Do you have her number?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Ooh, I like the sound of the second sister. Do you have her number?

you can dial any random number for the fun of discovery
beats the hell out of faith

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yes, a God creating the world in several days, if you believe that sort of thing, is far more credible.

I will immediately abandon scientific reasoning.

I believe God who is eternal created the world in a single day, then He went about
doing other things for 5 more days, and as a example to us rested on the 7th.

I don't believe in everything from nothing.
Nor do I believe that chaos can give the precise necessary forces in the universe to
pull it together, maintain it, then without control produce and maintain life.
Your proof resides in possibilities that may have happen billions or millions of
years ago! You thus avoid any thing today that can be seen that gives us other
possibilities better suited to give us the results required.

I also think claims that scientific reasoning has to be abandon to accept this has
nothing to do with the facts as is! That statement does not logically follow as so
many men of science historically and in the modern era can give witness too.

You are buying into peer pressure here, and your belittling simply shows your bias,
not the ability to follow evidence where it leads, it only allows you to accept that
which proves your beliefs.

@lemondrop said
I don't think faith and science will ever get along
like two twisted sisters
one dying and the other full of curiosity and the joy of discovery

Science and faith can get along famously, it is people who have an agenda that
wish to beat one or the other up may not.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
"Matter cannot be said to be in chaos when there is a force of influence on it. "

No, I disagree with that. Chaos often operates within a large system of order. This is true on both the macro and micro level.

If there is a large system of order going on how do you know your chaos isn't really
part of the order that you don't have the ability to see, like a great chess move that
is there but beyond our grasp?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
"Matter cannot be said to be in chaos when there is a force of influence on it. "

No, I disagree with that. Chaos often operates within a large system of order. This is true on both the macro and micro level.

You cannot run a business in chaos, you need control, definitions, identifications,
plans and purposes. Yet you think the universe is some how easier that nothing
like order is required?