I guess that's where we disagree then. I just think everything is far too complex far too precise and mechanized.. to be totally and completely accidental.

To me, chaos doesnt exist.. it's merely pattern beyond our range of detection. Accident's don't happen, although free radicals are factored in..just for diversity and to lean away from predefinition.

I still don't understand why you think we can't possibly have benet he result of forthought and calculation.. as precise and smooth and cyclic as everything is.. but I can't see all this being just a random accident.

I only see maybe the coalescening of atoms into one being and that being becoming intelligent, self aware and such.. that mightve been an accident.. that once. it's plausible that if you rub a trillion trillion electrons together in a small area, it'll coalesce and maybe something will come of it the likes of an intelligence.

But what you are saying is that that happened.. repeteatedly.. to form humans, earth, mars, the sun, all the galaxies.. everything.. a totally methodless accident.. and it all happens to have formed in a way that happens to make sense and work together?

Perhaps you could explain?...

Funny thing is that I think real chaos doesn't exist either, I also think our overview of things is too limited in a lot of areas and so yeah, although we 'experience' chaos.. it probably isn't really chaos, but simply reaction upon reaction upon reaction interfering with other reactions and so on.

What I meant with 'accident' in this aspect wasn't so much how it all accidentally must have happened by pure chance, I don't believe that since it's always reaction upon reaction, but I more so meant the lack of purpose and active design between all those reactions. It totally doesn't make sense for me that is some higher power, some God or some creator interfering with these reactions. I think life here happened to come into existence because the conditions were right, perhaps just right, but who knows... perhaps the galaxy is flooded with life. Where would you put this creator then? Somewhere in between? Completely at start? As in the infinity before life? Somehow it doesn't add up to place any creator within this framework, it doesn't fit. It's really not easy to explain why though..

Quote:

---

I only see maybe the coalescening of atoms into one being and that being becoming intelligent, self aware and such.. that mightve been an accident.. that once. it's plausible that if you rub a trillion trillion electrons together in a small area, it'll coalesce and maybe something will come of it the likes of an intelligence.

---

That's not an accident either, but a reaction. A plausible and very likely reaction. I think that people underestimate the inevitability of these kind of events in the bigger picture. It may look like a one-time event to us now, but I'm sure these kind of reactions, that almost look like accidental, happened all the time. Not because they were accidents that happened, but because the conditions where right. The only things that can stop something from happening, is when the conditions are wrong...

I think the universe, life and it's evolution and so on all makes sense because we think it makes sense. Why on earth do zebras exist? Sure we can analyze and come to certain conclusions, but why does it make sense that it exists other than that it's simply the result of reactions upon reactions in the past?

We tend to have a very strong feeling of how everything should always make sense, but some things definitely weren't made to make sense. I'm not talking about reactions that can be explained because we know they were the result of events, I'm talking about the philosophical aspect of why things exist.

I think the complexity speaks against a creator actually. We are off course part of the complexity itself, which makes it logical that we can't ever comprehend the entire complexity of it all simply because of our limits. Still, saying that there must have been something bigger than us, more intelligent or at least able to comprehend the complexity of what the actions of this creator would eventually cause sounds totally unbelievable. Would the creator really know that there would be zebras at one point in time? I don't think so. So... if he didn't know this, then can we speak of design? No, not really.. more so of 'accidents' in the form of reactions upon reactions and so on... Somehow design implies prediction of results, which sounds really really extremely unlikely to me. Perhaps that explains a bit more of my view..

Cheers

I dont really underestimate the likelihood of reactions.. but SOOO many circumstances have to be right in order for even one natural reaction to take place.

So.. what you are saying is that.. (starting from a universe of incoherent but local basic atoms) reaction after reaction after reaction.. occured.. eacho happening to have occured in the right place for a reaction to form galactic clouds.. which have thousands of coordinated reactions.. all happening in the exact right place tat they need to.. to react and cluster and form cores.. then the atomic material local to those cores happens to be in the right place to parent off millions of starts.. stars that share about 10-20 common patterns and types.. suns.. whos gravitation then reacts to atoms local to them and form protoplanets,..

While I do agree that.. at a certain point the reactions become cause and effect. Have a look around..

Isn't this all too perfect.. too well functioning as a mechanism.. ecosystem.
You don't think that even the atomic reaction that triggered all these reactions was the least bit deliberate or calculated?

Design implies calculation.. which is simply applying the rules of the universe that are already there.. and using those rules to determine what will most likely result. That's what our higher science is, in fact. That's how we didn't blow ourselves up when we invented/discovered atomic power.


So.. you don't think someone might've imagined.. concepted.. and then experimented to calculate how they could make.. thermonuclear reactive stars.. spiral galaxies.. planets teaming with life in ecosystems that work together? Even the occasional destruction to keep it all going and struggling for equilibrium (which is what all things in nature supposedly do)


It just.. happened to happen the right way.. and amount to a perfectly sensible.. functioning.. universe.. by chance after chance after chance (it would have taken multiple.. one extreme chance after another to arrive at even the parental complexities.. IE..yes planets are the product of gravitational ballets form stars.. and stars the result of stellar clouds that form by influence of galactic cores.. but when you get to the parent of the chain of cause and effect.. thats when it takes extreme.. extreme chance for multiple cores of a limited variety of type to have formed .. by chance. And if by chance, then there would be infinitely more possibilities than there are in this universe)

It (the universe) just seems to be.. to be too perfect.. too mechanical.. too functioning and stable to have been random, accidental, by chance.. and be what it is today. At best chances, coalescenet atomic reactions would have made stars of billions of kinds. No two stars would look alike. No two planets would be of the same configuration.. There would be too far infinite diversity.. and we know that that doesn't apply to at least the section of universe that we can see and detect.

It very well might not apply to the rest of it, but one little block of cheesecake is a pretty good indication of the general idea of what the rests of the pan consists of . If there were such chance, there'd be far too infinite possibilities for patterns and commonalities to be observed. If there were not observable and measurable patterns, there'd be no math and no science by which to measure or predict them.

But.. as we know.. there are patterns. There are cycles. All things have something that starts them.. some form of deliberaton between them to keep it on course.. and an end.

Atoms dont naturally get forced at random to make different atoms by fusion. Not unless they are forced to deliberately. That's because in nature, outside of life forms.. and even they, once born, are on a cycle of expiration.

They naturally degrade into lesser atoms, but this universe had to have begun from simple and grown complex.. otherwise, there would have been a big half-life in which some supermassive atom reached halflives and broke off into other, lesser ones.

The observed expansion that is still going on.. is proof contrary to that.

The only way atoms fuse that dont react that way upon introduction.. is if deliberate nuclear processes are inflicted on them.. and only an intelligence who wants said un natural fusions to occur can make it so.

Other wise.. in nature.. energy expends.. atoms diffuse and divide when their structures cant support it.. they form and combine with other atoms when they have to for stability, but even that severely limits the possibility of chance offsiring from covalent reactions.

They don't mash together on their own, the likes of which it wouldve taken to create nany of the elements we know exist on or off this earth. Deliberation had to be there.. whether it played a major role or not.

Someone knew what they wrought, and we are at the very beggining of our journey to understand their method.. even though it's all there in unedited form for us to see in entirity, read and know.

I don't mean the bibles, korans, psalm books, or torahs in our studies.. I mean the universe across which the real, uninterpretable, undisputable, uncorruptable word of "God" (oops!) is written.

If a creator were the easy way out, it would be easier to accept.

Maybe perfect is the wrong word. But.. systems.. such as birth, lifetime and expiration (death in the case of organisms).. they don't occur by chance, nor do they repeat or form elsewhere so similarly, if even once by chance.

Consider the most random event we know of.. lightening strikes. They are the most like random by chance happenings of any natural occurance. Because they are by chance, meaning they only occur given conditions being right.. no two lightening strikes look alike.. are exactly the same temperature.. or occur in the same time/space.

Now.. let's parrallel that to.. what everything else would end up being like.. were it to have all happened by chance.

Starting from the initial bang that sent atoms smashing into eachother, no more than two planets in the whole universe would form close to eachother in appearance or characteristic. Their infinitely diverse stars would make sure of that.

No two stars would be the same or more than remotely similar. No two of us would be close enough to be categorized as the same race. There would not likely be more than two of the same animal species on earth. There could be no such category as "species" because categories require that there be x number of very similar things to one another.


What I am getting at is that the universe does not exist in the infinite diversity that chance would have created. There are caterogizations.. systems.. things form a certain way in this corner of the galaxy, the same as they do in another part equidistant from the core.. and that's why there are categories. There is enough diversity that the universe is not boring, but chance would create infinite possibilities, and the possibilities that do exist as seen in nature.. are not infinite. Great.. yes.. but not nearly infinite.

If they were, there would be no point to naming types of stars or classes of planet, or species of animal. Not only wouldnt there be a point, but no method to it.

The concept of a creator isn't an easy write of.

A God is, most definately. B

ut saying that things form, live, die, and reproduce.. and that vast numbers of stars being characteristically similar to others.. that animal species come about.. and are similar but distinct from others.. saying that the fact there are many planets of a finite, though vast, variety and that there are limits to the diversity of things in nature.. and that that is due to it being a design, wherein these things were first concepted.. planned and then scientifically manifested..

I don't think that's easy at all . It's hard to even believe,... mostly because the anti-theistic among us wont accept their being anything so very far superior ro us anymore than they will accept a God.

But solely based on nature itself being a organism of finite, thou vast, diversity and cyclic birth, life, and death.. characteristics we know to be true of our universe.. which the results of chance would go against.. a certain amount of deliberation has to account for why there are patterns.

Chance creates infinite uniqueness. The conditions that create a chance event when, where, and how it manifests will not occur the same way again. It is only remotely likely that they occur even similarly, according to chance. But we know that stars form very similar (which is why they are grouped into types), even on opposite sides of the galaxy. We know that they have a certain body, wherein conditions are right for their birth. We know that there is patternity to the formation, locality, and longevity of said bodies.

But.. there is no patternity, only likelyhood, to chance.

Yet in our universe, patternity and cycles, commonalities between bodies and between events are abundant. Many things in this universe DO have predictable and common patterns, characteristics and cycles of happening. Many things DO manifest with similarities close enough to be categorized, grouped and studied thusly. Chance would not allow for limited diversity, yet that is what we have so far observed to be (and the one thing we have seen a great lot of is what's thee in the universe.. it why we have enouth data to classify anything at all).

The things in our universe are vast and dynamic, but not infinitely unique. Therefore.. though some chances are allowed to exist, i.e.. uniquenesses such the occurance and nature of lightening.. which in itself isnt truly random.. but needing of conditions (and maybe that too is a part of the desing.. just to keep things a little new and different) cannot have been the fathering element of all things.


Supposing it were, though, chance events require conditions. At the beggining there was only scattered energy and inhoherent atoms. The magnitude of force alone required for formation of everything from a supermassive structure no bigger than a pintip (the way the big bang is said to have happened) suggests that force had to be applied to push all that mass and energy into that one tiny space.. and then contain it.

But if there's nothing around.. no body larger than another to exert gravity greater than that being exerted on it and between all the other atoms.. thus no natural parents to the chain of formations, like what later took place.. then there could be no massive condensing.. and thus no big bang.

That is why I place not only a catalyst.. but a deliberately acting one at the scene.. due again to the strength and energy required to initiate the condensing, and arrange it in such a fashion that pattern, cycle, and mechanism result from it. No such strength, nor the work energy. Could've come from the cold, dispersed atoms and energy photons that were there before they were made into something.

Now.. I would say it is plausible that the one thing that could've happened by chance would have been the birth of the lifeform, credited with the subsequent creation, itself.. given enough atoms were not so distant enough to coalescene.. warm.. and network into something which, by chance, became self aware.

But it still would've had to have been a truly unique organism to even support so much information. Very different from anything carbon based.

Maybe at one point, again.. enough atoms were close enough to smidge together, and conduct and domino into a sentient network of atom and energy.. which became self aware in thr process. This being a true chance occurance in that it needed only conditions to be right, and it being a unique occurance, much like lightening.

So far there's been nothing remotely like it to form again, capable of retention, let alone application of so much knowledge from no more than dust and incoherent atoms of nothing in particular. So I would classify that as a truel chance event.

Now.. why is it possible for one single solitary lifeform to have formed by chance.. and not the rest of the universe..? Well besides the above reasons..

One unique, original.. by chance under minimal conditions.. lifeform is alot lower on the complexity scale than a superorganism such as the universe. It would take alot less matter, alot less energy.. and therefore had alot less tough conditions for formation by chance.

Chance makes believable sense as to his/hers/it's random coming into being.
Other than that though, nature is vastly diverse but finite. While the products of chance are infinitely diverse, and not as predictable or categorical as most things in nature, given the right know how, are.

That being why, on the whole, we are not the products of chance .

Predestiny is different from mechanization. The systems of a car engine are methodical and itnerdependant.. the systems of the body are also.. this says nothing about their predestination.

Modern physics only understands so much of it.. and thats why things only make sense to a point.. that's pretty much the grounded, limtied argument everyone uses.. basing far too much on modern science.

Obviously there's plenty we dont understand.. but also obviously..it all works methodically.. else we would encounter true inconsistancy.. and else we could get nowhere as far as understanding it even on a basic level.

If there were no such things as mechanisms, again we couldnt predict one single attribute about our world, or the space around it.. nor their relationships.

The fact that we can on a basic level, even up to where we stop understanding, and probably need different approaches to continue from.. says that these things exist.

See my above arguments about why chance and randomnity are not to credit with our beggining.. but in all our years studying the universe, we have never once encountered one inconsistancy.. only missing factors we had yet to detect. When we did detect them, either by finding a new method.. factors came into place, and we learned a little more.

We have not yet encountered a inconsistency, though. Only parts of the organism we don't understand. We are too limited to, for now.. but gradually.. we wont be.. and then we will feel silly for saying its an inconsistency or a fault in the universe's systems.. the same way we always do upon discovery.

My reasoning for there to have been premeditation though, is that the universe as a whole is not only far too complex and interdependantly functioning, not unlike a machine or organism.. put in play in just the right way that everything works..

but.. starting from nothing.. it had to have taken a much greater amount of deliberate (probably conceptualized and technically facilitated) force to turn a universe of scattered atoms into a dense pindrop.. and then let it go in just the right way that all this results.. than chance, or randomnity are capable of given the laws of basic science.

I didn't read it all, but it seems a waste of time when you have this:
knowledge
everything as a whole IS God
the bible says god says "I, Am"
is the bible author a known liar or is god lying.


everything as a whole is also canceled out by negative forces.

so get a number line and a dictionary and a calculator

mark on your number line that zero equals God look in your dictionary to see if zero means existence or not and you have your answer.

then look up dispute in the dictionary
and ratio
and fair
and balance
and first

first there was balance AND fairness leading to a 1:1 ratio

maybe you've heard the phrase WORD for WORD
God is balance while god is Fair

now we are holding all of this to the ruler of justice right?
so you agree that god DOES EXIST.

1:1 ratio is equivalent to any A:A ratio including 0:0

offtopic, ratios are divisions so you CAN divide by zero

look up good
and bad
and evil
and honesty
and perspective
and logic

the greatest battle ever fought is in the mind of man
this is true when the mind of man is complete

and finally look up bias in the dictionary

god is about choice

Biogenesis
it was a strong argoment in favour of creation in the 19th century but modern bio has razed it to ground
Artificial chromosomes have been already assembled

The 2nd law (entropy)



Not only earth is not a closed system , even better, earth absorbs low entropy energy from the sun and delivers high entropy energy in the night
This can explain the creation and maintence of highly organized systems