Atheism - The Final Frontier

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf83ce79e64b.jpg[/atsimg]

Since the acceleration of scientific discoveries, Atheism has worked hard to take science hostage and distance creationists from science.

They achieved this deceit by using scientific finding as evidence of disbelief and as evidence against creationism. For a long time their assault was on an easy target "the Bible", revolving their assaults around the age of the Earth, the creation of man (evolution), and the "GOD of Gaps".

The problem though is, that creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible. The simple reason why Atheists target the Bible excessively has to do with their attempts to discredit the whole idea of creationism through it.

This is cheap shots, using one segment of creationist belief to discredit the whole, which forces me to reitterate, "Creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible".

Science proves there is no GOD

You will hear many Atheists describe the findings of science as evidence that GOD doesn't exist, or more famously, "don't need to exist to explain the universal phenomenas".

Many believers get trapped by this non-sense. When believers are told that GOD didn't create man, rather evolution did, they get confused and out of ignorance fall in this trap, which pushes them against the wall and lead them to question the validity of evolution.

The trap is created with intention to distance creationists from science, and creationists should never fall for it.

Science can be looked at from a different perspective hence, science is the elaboration of the creation, and in no way or form does elaboration of creation disprove the creator.

If evidence supports the process of evolution, that merely is an elaboration of how man was created, rather than evidence that GOD doesn't exist.

The GOD of Gaps

This has become a very famous argument amongst the ignorant, which is un-necessary.

The God of Gap is an argument which states that creationists support the existence of GOD based on what we don't know, rather than what we do know.

Yes, it is true, the ignorant will always revolve their beliefs around ignorance, that shouldn't be surprisings. But that doesn't mean that creationism revolve around what we don't know, rather I'll argue that creationism revolves around what we do know.

Every process that science has elaborated on shows that they are not random. This is a scientific fact (unless someone can produce a formula for random). If there is no randomness within this universe, then the Universe is determined hence "determinism". This is the scientific evidence of a creator, hence determinism and non-random existence.

Atheists have convinced themselves that the Universe evolved randomly, that evolution is random, even though science has clearly proven that nothing is random within this Universe.

If you flip a coin, it doesn't give you a random out come, it is determined.

When you roll a dice, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.

When you spin the wheel of fortune, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.

This proves that the Universe was determined to be what it is, rather than the product of random. If the Universe is restarted a million times the results will be exactly the same, unless a conscious being/creator/GOD changes the variables.

The definition of random:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7095332cc14b.jpg[/atsimg]

Creationists - Don't be Intimidated

Creationists should never be intimidated by Atheists, there is no reason for that. The vast majority of the world believes the Universe is the product of a conscious created, and the Universal elaboration is evidence supporting this belief.

This belief will continue till the end of times, it won't end, because some scientists have realized with justification, that the more we elaborate on our surroundings, the closer we get to the creator, more signs pointing to a creator arises.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09bedcffc3c8.gif[/atsimg]

They can say what ever they want, let them drown in pride, let them feel superior, that's a waste of time for them. For us to defend our beliefs is not a waste of time, for believers, every moment of this defense is rewarding, it is rewarding in this life time, and in the next.

If you flip a coin, it doesn't give you a random out come, it is determined.

When you roll a dice, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.

When you spin the wheel of fortune, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.


if you flip a coin the outcome is random it is not predetermined there is no way to determine beforehand weather it will be heads or tails.

when you roll a die (singular of dice) the result can not be determined beforehand weather it will be any of the 6 numbers on the die ( assuming a six sided die)

wheel of fortune ..again you apparently do not understand the concept of random at all. unless the game is rigged there is no possible way to determine the exact outcome of a spin, your examples are not very well chosen nor is your argument.

reply to post by confreak


How is this thread not "drowning in pride?"

Seriously, read your own logic before posting.



Their is no right answer and there is NO side that has been proven!
Why????????????????? BECAUSE its all based on beliefs....

Is this concept of beliefs so hard to comprehend? No, but threads like this make it look like it is.

Oh and who gives...about random crap.
Live your life, instead of worrying about useless junk.

reply to post by CaDreamer


It is not random, it is ignorance which gives the perception of random.

Have you ever heard of a machine which flips a coin, and produces the same exact result every time? You just set the conditions, and same exact result will be produced. Why? Because nothing is random, set of hidden conditions/variables create the perception of random.

There is a specific reason why in programming there is only something called "pseudo random". No one is yet to produce a formula for random. I have been involved in game productions and am fully aware how pseudo random works, because we use it for spawning creatures in seemingly random locations, or in special event we drop gifts in seemingly random locations. These are in reality not random, but a formula is used to give the perception of random.

If you know all the variables, you know where the items will fall.

Originally posted by johngrissom
reply to post by confreak

 

How is this thread not "drowning in pride?"

Seriously, read your own logic before posting.



Their is no right answer and there is NO side that has been proven!
Why????????????????? BECAUSE its all based on beliefs....

Is this concept of beliefs so hard to comprehend? No, but threads like this make it look like it is.

Oh and who gives...about random crap.
Live your life, instead of worrying about useless junk.

edit on 26-6-2011 by johngrissom because: (no reason given)

I have no idea what you are trying to push across,
but do give it another try.

If I get what you are saying I might be able to give you a proper response.

Originally posted by confreak
Every process that science has elaborated on shows that they are not random. This is a scientific fact (unless someone can produce a formula for random). If there is no randomness within this universe, then the Universe is determined hence "determinism". This is the scientific evidence of a creator, hence determinism and non-random existence.

Putting aside for the moment the fact that it is believed that quantum motion is random, what does either randomness or determinism have to do with the idea of a Creator?

Atheists have convinced themselves that the Universe evolved randomly, that evolution is random, even though science has clearly proven that nothing is random within this Universe.

Wrong. Evolutionists don't believe evolution is random, that was the whole point of natural SELECTION: that it is NOT random.

The reason I don't believe in god is because people don't know what the heck they're talking about when they use the word "god". The creator of the universe? Okay, just what is that anyway? And of course there is the argument, its an old one but a good one: why should the universe require a creator while god does not? I've never heard a sensible response to that question.

Oh here we go. Another religious ignoramous who's getting butthurt about stuff he's making up.

Originally posted by confreak
Since the acceleration of scientific discoveries, Atheism has worked hard to take science hostage and distance creationists from science.

Assuming for a moment that you are correct (you're not, by the way. What do you think Atheism is, some sort of wrestling team?) then it wouldn't really matter; if the evdence for creationism were so overwhelming and compelling, then creationism would be part of science.

See, this is the inherent problem of people like you. Your "a wizard did it!" hypothesis can't stand on its own feet, so you, utterly unable to conceive of alternatives to your wizard, look for "sabotage." When will you realize that the reason your hypothesis gets no credit is because the hypothesis itself is bad?

They achieved this deceit by using scientific finding as evidence of disbelief and as evidence against creationism. For a long time their assault was on an easy target "the Bible", revolving their assaults around the age of the Earth, the creation of man (evolution), and the "GOD of Gaps".

Yes, "deceit." Every atheist on earth is colluding with every scientist on earth, forging all this evidence, just to give you something to whine about on the internet. This is a startling level of cohesion between such disparate, competitive people. Of course, maybe the near-fistfights over hte nomenclatureof orchids that happens when botanists get together is just a ruse!

The problem though is, that creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible. The simple reason why Atheists target the Bible excessively has to do with their attempts to discredit the whole idea of creationism through it.

Oh, there's no attempt to discredit creationism. After all, there's no need - the hypothesis, whatever its origins, can't even support itself. its own adherents can't agree on anything other than the notion that some variety of wizard did it. God? Aliens? computer programmers? They have no idea, because they have no data to draw their conclusions from; they start with a conclusion ("a wizard did it!") and then don't even bother trying to collect a single speck of datum; they just stuck their thumbs up their buttsand squal about how "oppressed" they are when we ignore them.

No, there's no need to discredit creationism. But it is awfully fun to mock. Care for a glass of phlogiston before we sail off the edge of the world?

This is cheap shots, using one segment of creationist belief to discredit the whole, which forces me to reitterate, "Creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible".

No, in fact the Bible revolves around creationsim. However, the bible is the most often-cited "source" (since again, creationists have no data) and so it gets to be mocked for all it's worth, too.

I hear chemists throw similar mockery at anyone who quotes passages from Everburning Lights of Trithemius at them.

Science proves there is no GOD

You will hear many Atheists describe the findings of science as evidence that GOD doesn't exist, or more famously, "don't need to exist to explain the universal phenomenas".

More accurately, we - and scientists - note that there is no evidence for God, or any other sort of wizard that may have done it. None. Now, we have evidence of subatomic particles that seem to be capable of time-travel and teleportation. But so far? No god.

More interestingly, even the people who want really badly for there to be a god have found nothing supporting the existence of such a being. nothing. Everything - everything they have brought forth has a much simpler explanation that stands on its own merit, rather than their own circular logic of "It exists, so the creator made it, so the creator also exists!"

In layman's terms, yes, this is "evidence that god doesn't exist." of course in scientific terms, there is no such thing as negative evidence; However the evidence of everything else seems to reduce the possibility of "God" by an ever-increasing percentage, especially when coupled with the lack of supporting evidence for such a being.

Many believers get trapped by this non-sense. When believers are told that GOD didn't create man, rather evolution did, they get confused and out of ignorance fall in this trap, which pushes them against the wall and lead them to question the validity of evolution.

The trap is created with intention to distance creationists from science, and creationists should never fall for it.

This is known as "critical thought." I am unsurprised that you have a deep problem with the application of this notion.

Yes, believers, ignore all the evidence! Ignore everything discovered. ignore everything you yourself can examine and draw your own conclusions from! Ignore all that #, all you need is a magical caste of specially-enlightened secretive men in robes to tell you about reality. Critical thought and applied logic is the debbil!

Science can be looked at from a different perspective hence, science is the elaboration of the creation, and in no way or form does elaboration of creation disprove the creator.

Trouble is, one would need evidence of the creator to start down this path. There is - I'm starting to repeat myself - absolutely no evidence of such a thing. so you're engaging in special pleading here.

If evidence supports the process of evolution, that merely is an elaboration of how man was created, rather than evidence that GOD doesn't exist.

No, it's not evidence that "god" doesn't exist (it IS pretty solid evidence against every single religious and sci-fi woowoo account of how we got here, though)

Again, there is no such thing as negative evidence; There is only lack of evidence for something. For example, we have zero evidence of extra-terrestrial life. does this mean there is no extraterrestrial life? No, it simply means that we have no evidence. However, as we keep expanding our horizons and finding that the evidence keeps right on lacking, we can start decreasing the odds for extra-terrestrial life.

Unfortunately for God, extraterrestrial life has a head start on him; we already have evidence that life exists on ONE world, after all. we have no evidence of a creator anywhere. And all ET impacts is their planet's own ecology, while this creator impacts, well... absolutely everything, apparently. So the fact that we have no evidence of it anywhere already means that God is way behind the prawns from "District 9" on hte probability charts.

The GOD of Gaps

This has become a very famous argument amongst the ignorant, which is un-necessary.

The God of Gap is an argument which states that creationists support the existence of GOD based on what we don't know, rather than what we do know.

Yes, it is true, the ignorant will always revolve their beliefs around ignorance, that shouldn't be surprisings. But that doesn't mean that creationism revolve around what we don't know, rather I'll argue that creationism revolves around what we do know.

Actually it has more to do with the arguments and "evidence" creationists usually bring up. Most famously their demands for "transitional species" - and when such is found, they demand transitional species between that one and the two next to it, ad infinitum. Also the bad habit of pointing to any case where science doesn't know yet, and going "AHA! YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING, SO YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!"

Every process that science has elaborated on shows that they are not random. This is a scientific fact (unless someone can produce a formula for random). If there is no randomness within this universe, then the Universe is determined hence "determinism". This is the scientific evidence of a creator, hence determinism and non-random existence.

Except the existence of such a being - assuming it has the powers to just create stuff willy-nilly - would impart randomness to the universe; call it "divine whim." if it lacks such powers, then it's not really a "creator," now is it? Or, at least, not one worth deification, any more than gravity is (and truthfully, gravity is, thus far, about as close as you can get.)

This is, of course, without even mentioning how absolutely terrible your logic is. You're making some pretty massive leaps of assumption there; first, that a lack of randomness is certain proof of determinism (it's not) and that said determinism would be proof of a creator (it wouldn't be).

Essentially your argument boils down to an argument of "it exists, so it must have been created, so there's a creator!"

Atheists have convinced themselves that the Universe evolved randomly, that evolution is random, even though science has clearly proven that nothing is random within this Universe.

Actually no, it's creationists who are convinced that atheists are convinced of this. Evolution is not the least bit random. The origin of the universe wasn't, either, as far as we can tell.

This is a comforting myth that ignorant creationists such as you tell yourselves. it's like a woobie blanket. The fact is not only do you not know crap about evolution, not only do you not know crap about astrophysics, but you very certainly don't know crap about how atheists think.

If you flip a coin, it doesn't give you a random out come, it is determined.

When you roll a dice, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.

When you spin the wheel of fortune, it doesn't give you a random result, it is determined.

This proves that the Universe was determined to be what it is, rather than the product of random.

well, actually it proves that the forces of gravity and friction can have a predictable outcome on the kinectic energy of tossed coins, thrown dice, and spun wheels. If I had time I could probably even do the calculus for you. of course it varies on everything from the position of your hand, applied force, local air density, and so many other niggling little things that, in layman's terms, it IS in fact random; it's possible to write a proof for every single possible outcome by taking in all factors, but in practice, there's no real way to do this.

That is, a given predicted outcome of a particular dice roll can be falsified reliably. Actually making that particular roll, however, has such tiny, tiny odds that this proof doesn't actually matter to anyone shooting craps.

If the Universe is restarted a million times the results will be exactly the same, unless a conscious being/creator/GOD changes the variables.

Yup! And changing those variables would be an injection of randomness. So which is it, buddy? Does your argument hinge on there being randomness, or there being a lack of randomness?

Where is your god now?

Creationists - Don't be Intimidated

Creationists should never be intimidated by Atheists, there is no reason for that. The vast majority of the world believes the Universe is the product of a conscious created, and the Universal elaboration is evidence supporting this belief.

No one should be intimidated by anyone.

Creationists; don't be intimidated by other creationsits. All the data is out there for you to observe. Use that chunk of spongy nerve tissue, fat, and blood vessels within your head-bone and apply critical thought. Regardless of the dire warnings given to you by your holy books, your priests, and your fellows such as confreak. you've got a big ol' universe to learn about out there, and it's even more amazing for the lack of a wizard doing it.

This belief will continue till the end of times, it won't end, because some scientists have realized with justification, that the more we elaborate on our surroundings, the closer we get to the creator, more signs pointing to a creator arises.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09bedcffc3c8.gif[/atsimg]

Well, you have no such evidence to bring to bear.

Interesting graphic. Do you think that lots of people believing wildly different stuff actually supports your notion for creationism?

They can say what ever they want, let them drown in pride, let them feel superior, that's a waste of time for them. For us to defend our beliefs is not a waste of time, for believers, every moment of this defense is rewarding, it is rewarding in this life time, and in the next.

Well, so long as you enjoy yourself, nothing is a waste of time.

I for instance, enjoy enlightening the stunningly ignorant. Or at least giving it a shot. This has been a fun post.

Originally posted by Tearman
Putting aside for the moment the fact that it is believed that quantum motion is random, what does either randomness or determinism have to do with the idea of a Creator?

Because if the Universe isn't random, then it was created to be what it is, nothing evolved randomly, and the lack of randomness is evidence that consciousness was behind the design, hence the definition of random.

Wrong. Evolutionists don't believe evolution is random, that was the whole point of natural SELECTION: that it is NOT random.

Many Atheists believe it is random, they claim mutation etc is random, this not true, and you are a witness to that

The reason I don't believe in god is because people don't know what the heck they're talking about when they use the word "god". The creator of the universe? Okay, just what is that anyway? And of course there is the argument, its an old one but a good one: why should the universe require a creator while god does not? I've never heard a sensible response to that question.

edit on 27-6-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

Why does the Universe need a creator but god doesn't? I have already explained that above, because the Universe is not random, and the lack of randomness is testimonial to a conscious creator.

Once again, the Universe was designed to be what it is, and didn't randomly evolve.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Oh, there's no attempt to discredit creationism. After all, there's no need

And yet you are here doing exactly what you claim no needed to be done.

No, there's no need to discredit creationism. But it is awfully fun to mock. Care for a glass of phlogiston before we sail off the edge of the world?

Which is why I state it is a waste of time for Atheists to do so, drowning in their own arrogance and making themselves feel superior through mockery.

This is, of course, without even mentioning how absolutely terrible your logic is. You're making some pretty massive leaps of assumption there; first, that a lack of randomness is certain proof of determinism (it's not) and that said determinism would be proof of a creator (it wouldn't be).

Funny, you continually said there is no evidence, when evidence was provided your rebuttal was and I quote "it wouldn't be".

well, actually it proves that the forces of gravity and friction can have a predictable outcome on the kinectic energy of tossed coins, thrown dice, and spun wheels. If I had time I could probably even do the calculus for you. of course it varies on everything from the position of your hand, applied force, local air density, and so many other niggling little things that, in layman's terms, it IS in fact random; it's possible to write a proof for every single possible outcome by taking in all factors, but in practice, there's no real way to do this.

Yes which proves everything is but random, determined to be what it is, rather than randomly came to what it is. Determined by who? You claim by Universal laws, but we are all aware that such determinism, and such laws have never come to existence without consciousness, unless you want to make a huge assumption that Universal laws and its deterministic behavior did come to existence without consciousness.

In the other hand we as conscious beings have created laws, product of consciousness, and we have created systems similar to the Universal system which has deterministic behavior hence the computer you are using (once again product of conscious creator). In that sense, unless you can provided an instance where laws and deterministic behavior has come to existence without consciousness, the conclusion is simple.

Yup! And changing those variables would be an injection of randomness. So which is it, buddy? Does your argument hinge on there being randomness, or there being a lack of randomness?

Not an injection of randomness, rather the perception of randomness from ignorance.

Interesting graphic. Do you think that lots of people believing wildly different stuff actually supports your notion for creationism?

Nope, it means "Truth stands clear from falsehood".

Originally posted by confreak

Originally posted by Tearman
Putting aside for the moment the fact that it is believed that quantum motion is random, what does either randomness or determinism have to do with the idea of a Creator?

Because if the Universe isn't random, then it was created to be what it is, nothing evolved randomly, and the lack of randomness is evidence that consciousness was behind the design, hence the definition of random.

What does randomness have to do with a creator? Wouldn't a totally random universe equally require explanation? Never mind the fact that it is believed that on a quantum level, the universe is inherently random.

Wrong. Evolutionists don't believe evolution is random, that was the whole point of natural SELECTION: that it is NOT random.

Many Atheists believe it is random, they claim mutation etc is random, this not true, and you are a witness to that

They believe that mutation is random, or at least not designed and unpredictable, but they believe that evolution is not random. While the mutations are random, the pressures that select which mutations are propagated into the future are definitely not random. For example: A mutation that increases your chances of early death will not be positively selected for by nature. The reason should be self explanatory.

The reason I don't believe in god is because people don't know what the heck they're talking about when they use the word "god". The creator of the universe? Okay, just what is that anyway? And of course there is the argument, its an old one but a good one: why should the universe require a creator while god does not? I've never heard a sensible response to that question.

edit on 27-6-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

Why does the Universe need a creator but god doesn't? I have already explained that above, because the Universe is not random, and the lack of randomness is testimonial to a conscious creator.

If the universe is not random, why does that imply a conscious creator? If it IS random, then how the heck did it get that way, why wouldn't that universe require explanation? And if a god did create the universe, is god random? Because if god is not random, then doesn't it itself require a conscious creator? If god IS random, then how could you say that it is even capable of design?

Once again, the Universe was designed to be what it is, and didn't randomly evolve.

Originally posted by Tearman

What does randomness have to do with a creator? Wouldn't a totally random universe equally require explanation? Never mind the fact that it is believed that on a quantum level, the universe is inherently random.

No, a totally random wouldn't require a creator, because the definition random is just that, the lack of consciousness behind it. That is what random means. Regarding quantum level the Universe being inherently random, that is out of ignorance. We don't know all the variables now, do you think you know all the variables? Even scientists claim they don't know all the variables. Just like an individual being ignorance of all the variables which determines the outcome of a coin toss would claim it is random, the same way you are claiming quantum level Universe is random. That means you are using the same "GOD of Gap" arguments some Atheists use against Creationists, using what we don't know to prove a point.

They believe that mutation is random, or at least not designed and unpredictable, but they believe that evolution is not random. While the mutations are random, the pressures that select which mutations are propagated into the future are definitely not random. For example: A mutation that increases your chances of early death will not be positively selected for by nature. The reason should be self explanatory.

Exactly my point, they believe mutation is random, and it isn't, and I have already explained why.

If the universe is not random, why does that imply a conscious creator?

Ask yourself, why is a computer not random? Your Windows load and you see the same results every time, unless new variables are injected like let's say a virus. The product of consciousness isn't random and is indeterministic. The product of unconsciousness is random, and cannot be determined.

If it IS random, then how the heck did it get that way, why wouldn't that universe require explanation?

If it is random, then that means no consciousness was involved, there is no sense of order, it just evolved to be what it is, and wasn't determined to be what it is.

And if a god did create the universe, is god random? Because if god is not random, then doesn't it itself require a conscious creator? If god IS random, then how could you say that it is even capable of design?

The Universe is not random.

Originally posted by confreak
And yet you are here doing exactly what you claim no needed to be done.

See, to "discredit" something, it would first need credit. Creationism has none, and you have certainly no imparted any to it here tonight. I am simply letting you know that your arguments are terrible, your logic is flawed, and that your assumptions are wrong.

Hell, you're not even trying to bolster creartionism here, so much as trying ot attack science... which really does seem to be about all folks like you are capable of doing.

Which is why I state it is a waste of time for Atheists to do so, drowning in their own arrogance and making themselves feel superior through mockery.

I actually get my feelings of superiority through actually being superior. See, I actually know more about this stuff than you do. This makes you my lesser, at least in this regard. Actually seeking an education for the subjects at hand would give you a chance to improve yourself, though.

Funny, you continually said there is no evidence, when evidence was provided your rebuttal was and I quote "it wouldn't be".

You presented no evidence. You cited a fact (the lack of randomness) and then used to to make one assumption - that the lack of randomness is proof of determinism - and then used that assumption to launch another assumption, that determinism is proof of a creator.

So let's start with determinism. I suppose in a broad sense of the word, one could make the argument; cause and effect is a form of determinism, after all. But I have a sneaking suspicion you're talking more about "god sits back and decides what happens before it does" sort of determinism, especially given your next part. The two problems you have are, one, that you are assuming determinism (broad or philosophical) is the reason for the lack of randomness. In fact it's the other way around; the lack of randomness is the cause, cause and effect is (interestingly) the effect. Two, you admit later that your creator can "change the rules" - that not only is he unbound by determinism, but neither is anything within his scope.

So which brings us to the next point, determinism as proof of a creator. You never actually explain how determinism points to a creator. You require your reader to make that assumptive leap with you, instead.

It could just as easily point towards the utter lack of a creator. Determinism is, as I said, actually a proof of non-randomness Unfortunately as I've also pointed out, this creator would itself be random. He'd have to be able to operate "outside the rules." Which would make the creator an element of randomness that could not exist within a non-random universe. Of course, how would a random thing create a non-random universe, and then make a conscious decision to leave it non-random? Determinism does a pretty good job of tearing hte feet out from under a creator here.

Or it could point to something like an animistic universe; where it has always "just been" and each force, object, and particle is controlled by an individual guiding spirit. not themselves creators, just guides for matter, energy, and phenominon.

Of course it boils down to our lack of any determinable evidence for a "creator." No corroborating evidence, unless you want to make that old argument "existence is proof of a creator." if that's the case then certainly the creator is so utterly dilute and manifold that it would be completely unrecognizable anyway.

Now, if you want to worship gravity or atomic bonds, I'm not going to be the one to stop you. I just want you to realize that that's essentially what you end up with, here.

Yes which proves everything is but random, determined to be what it is, rather than randomly came to what it is. Determined by who? You claim by Universal laws, but we are all aware that such determinism, and such laws have never come to existence without consciousness, unless you want to make a huge assumption that Universal laws and its deterministic behavior did come to existence without consciousness.

You are again indulging in circular argument; "the creator created stuff, because stuff exists, so stuff proves a creator."

It's okay to say "I don't know." In fact knowing when you don't know something is a mark of knowledge. Now the question is; is it unknowable? I don't think it is (but... I don't know!) And the fact is, neither do you. You can't tell me a single thing about the central pillar of your hypothesis, other than that it's the central pillar of your hypothesis.

In the other hand we as conscious beings have created laws, product of consciousness, and we have created systems similar to the Universal system which has deterministic behavior hence the computer you are using (once against product of conscious creator). In that sense, unless you can provided an instance where laws and deterministic behavior has come to existence without consciousness, the conclusion is simple.

Oh yes, we've created laws. Such as the law against murder, which, thankfully, made murder impossible long, long ago. Anyone who tries to violate the law against homicide finds that htey are simply unable to do so.



You want an instance of deterministic behavior without consciousness? Okay.

The universe.

Not an injection of randomness, rather the perception of randomness from ignorance.

If this being can change the rules on a whim, then it is injecting randomness into an otherwise orderly universe. I have one fish... and now boom, I have enough fish to feed a party. That's random. The value of pi today is going to be three, flat. More randomness. Each particular instance indulges a particular system of order. but as a whole it becomes an injection of randomness; "the universe works a new and different way right now, and now it works a different way from that!"

Nope, it means "Truth stands clear from falsehood".

Really? So... atheists know more about truth than Hindus, Christians know more than Muslims, and everyone's smarter than Jews?

Originally posted by confreak
Exactly my point, they believe mutation is random, and it isn't, and I have already explained why.

The instance of mutation, like the instance of getting a certain die roll, might as well be random for all that it matters. The mutation itself never is, though; a mutated gene relies on what's already there.

it's unpredictable which is a different thing from "random." You seem to understand this much.

You then make the huge leap to assume that this distinction points towards there being a wizard taking an active interest in THAT mutation happening at THAT gene, at THAT moment. Actively and purposefully causing it, because god is very interested in hideous six-legged cows with cyclopean eyeballs.

I suppose maybe Satan is a factor in your calculations? Time plus energy multiplied by god to the power of the organism's complexity minus satan to the power of time since the Fall.

Atheism is Islam's weakest opponent.

The more atheists in a country, the more muslims they let in - just look at yurop and Britan.

I use to be an atheist and then someone showed me something (logic) and it lingered in my mind for years until officially denounced atheism. I still don't believe in a traditional monotheistic God sitting in the sky with a white bread punishing us for our bad deeds. I do believe in an all encompassing and incomprehensible God in which we all exist and are a part of. Ask me to explain this God, I repeat incomprehensible. Ask me why he never made himself known to us modern people as proof, I say where's the proof he hasn't and isn't constantly through science, physics and through us individually and collectively continuously.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Geographical proximity to immigrants of course has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Also, Islam is the debbil. Which is why good Christians like Exuberant1 hate, hate, HATE Muslims with all of their big warm, gooey Christ-filled hearts.

Originally posted by CantSay
I use to be an atheist and then someone showed me something (logic)

Ask me why he never made himself known to us modern people as proof, I say where's the proof he hasn't

(logic)

I don't think you know what that word means.

The vast majority of the world believes the Universe is the product of a conscious created, and the Universal elaboration is evidence supporting this belief.

The more people that are deluded means there must be a creator-?

Way to be logical.

I'll never understand that reasoning, it's so flawed. Much like the rest of your OP- how do you figure rolling a dice is determined? or flipping a coin? there's no way of knowing what numbers will come up on the dice, and there's no way of knowing when you flip a coin whether it will be heads or tails or not.

The Creation story is just that, a story.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Which is why good Christians like Exuberant1 hate, hate, HATE Muslims with all of their big warm, gooey Christ-filled hearts.

So I'm not Jewish?

Originally posted by confreak

Originally posted by Tearman

What does randomness have to do with a creator? Wouldn't a totally random universe equally require explanation? Never mind the fact that it is believed that on a quantum level, the universe is inherently random.

No, a totally random wouldn't require a creator, because the definition random is just that, the lack of consciousness behind it. That is what random means.

says you. Another definition of random is that there are no hidden mechanisms producing it, whether or not that mechanism is an intelligent design. Why does non randomness imply intelligent design as opposed to some other non intelligent mechanism?

Regarding quantum level the Universe being inherently random, that is out of ignorance. We don't know all the variables now, do you think you know all the variables? Even scientists claim they don't know all the variables. Just like an individual being ignorance of all the variables which determines the outcome of a coin toss would claim it is random, the same way you are claiming quantum level Universe is random. That means you are using the same "GOD of Gap" arguments some Atheists use against Creationists, using what we don't know to prove a point.

actually there are logical reasons to believe there are no hidden variables. As I understand it, the matter is not fully closed, but they don't just believe that it is random for no reason. I don't think I can discuss this matter any further without a lot of reading, or maybe a Ph.D or 2.

They believe that mutation is random, or at least not designed and unpredictable, but they believe that evolution is not random. While the mutations are random, the pressures that select which mutations are propagated into the future are definitely not random. For example: A mutation that increases your chances of early death will not be positively selected for by nature. The reason should be self explanatory.

Exactly my point, they believe mutation is random, and it isn't, and I have already explained why.

I don't think this matters because the mechanism of natural selection is not dependent on true randomness. It can work with pseudo randomness even without any intelligent involvement.

If the universe is not random, why does that imply a conscious creator?

Ask yourself, why is a computer not random?

because there are underlying mechanisms that determine its function.

Your Windows load and you see the same results every time, unless new variables are injected like let's say a virus. The product of consciousness isn't random and is indeterministic. [presuming you meant deterministic]

why is consciousness the only mechanism that could account for non randomness? I think that you are saying that a computer has the appearance of design and therefore it is designed. The reason we say it has the appearance of design is because we know it is designed. If we knew of natural processes which could form a windows computer, we would not say that it has the appearance of design.

And if a god did create the universe, is god random? Because if god is not random, then doesn't it itself require a conscious creator? If god IS random, then how could you say that it is even capable of design?

The Universe is not random.

Okay, so your argument is basically that the universe is not random and therefore it requires an intelligent designer. Let's assume that this is true and that the universe is not in any sense random. Okay, there is a god and it is in some way capable of "design". Is god random? If it is not, then it meets the definition of things that require a creator and then we have the problem of requiring an infinite number of creators to explain the universe.

The truth is that we have no clue how anything ultimately exists. There is no point in blaming it on something we label god as opposed to anything else. We don't know. It may be that it is not possible for anyone to know, no matter what level of intelligence they possess. On the other hand, we can't rule out the possibility that someone will discover a totally self explanatory explanation. It may very well be that there is an intelligence that is in some way responsible for the existence of this universe, but that would explain nothing: we would be no closer to understanding how that scenario came to be, even if we KNEW that it was true.

I think that we actually have something in common. We both think the universe is in need of explanation. The difference between us is that you think that god is a meaningful explanation, and I do not.