Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
What are you talking about? Science, unless I've been poisoned by a certain dumb-ass Darwin repeater, sees the world as the product of cause and effect. By which a series of random events led to the miraculous cascade of patterns that we now call the nature of the universe, laws of physics, etc.

Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
What are you talking about? Science, unless I've been poisoned by a certain dumb-ass Darwin repeater, sees the world as the product of cause and effect. By which a series of random events led to the miraculous cascade of patterns that we now call the nature of the universe, laws of physics, etc.

Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.

Then that would imply they had a previously determined destination.

Originally posted by Conclusion
Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.

Then that would imply they had a previously determined destination.

What would?
Explain

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
What are you talking about? Science, unless I've been poisoned by a certain dumb-ass Darwin repeater, sees the world as the product of cause and effect. By which a series of random events led to the miraculous cascade of patterns that we now call the nature of the universe, laws of physics, etc.

Cause and effect is not necessarily random, nor are the subsequent results of the effect. The laws of physics are assumed to have existed from the moment of the big bang, they were not "led" to their qualities by random events.

It is random in the sense that it has no particular direction. It merely opts for the path of least resistance.

How were the laws of physics set in motion when the elements they are composed of were not there?

The elements and factors that comprise many of those laws weren't even around yet, it was just a massive expansion of energy without form. The laws came afterward. After the dust settled and variables began to come together accordingly, based on relativity and a myriad of other things.

It is basically like demolishing a building. You can't predict exactly where every single piece of debris will land until you calculate every single parameter of the initial boom. Including possible wind gusts, subsequent tremors, blast-wave, etc.

----

My point is that the layout of the universe was directly proportional to the unfolding of its birth. The birth of which seems to have no other reason other than matter being at the right place at the right time and coming together just right in order to yield the aforementioned results.

It is randomized. It is one of the major differences in our belief systems. Some people dislike faith because it seemingly implies lack of control, or fate.

Some people hate science because it implies random occurrence, or lack of control.

I'm not saying it is as random as like ... a particle bumps into another one and an elephant explodes in outerspace.

I'm saying it is random in the sense that it doesn't have an apparent rhyme or reason beyond the same reason that billiard balls bounce off one another.

Things were in motion, and stuff was just right for them to happen.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]

Originally posted by Conclusion
The belief that there is no creator?

No. the absence of a belief in a deity.

To talk about how we came to be here, you'd have to talk to each atheist and ask what he or she believes about creation because we all have different beliefs and ideas as to how we got here, including having no belief at all about it.

Originally posted by Conclusion
In order for something to exist it has to be created. Show me anything that is not created.

You have said that this God you believe in was not created. You have provided your own proof.

Originally posted by Conclusion
Then that would imply they had a previously determined destination.

Implications, just like assumptions and suspicions, are NOT proof.

[edit on 5/18/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Atheism is a religion like any of the main stream culprits...It starts as a matter of 'faith'...that there is no 'God'. There once was an international center for atheism, in I believe, San Antonio, TX. You could commit blasphemy in this place by ordering a tuna sandwhich, and a coke, and sitting down (in the basement cafeteria) and saying 'Grace'. A mercurial 'prophet' (O'hare) died of mysterious circumstances... and even if you searched the known universe, finding no 'God', you still couldn't be sure that 'God' wouldn't pop up in a place you had visited several billion years in the past with a Jimmy Cagney sneer, saying, "Looking for me, asshole?) Zen mind, beginner's mind, would be my guess...

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
How were the laws of physics set in motion when the elements they are composed of were not there?

*headsmack*

The laws of physics are not composed of elements.

I'll let that go for now and get to the heart of our discussion. Yes, many things in the universe operate without reasoned intention. I'm sure you can see this in all manners of the sciences. Why then would you expect, say, the beginning of the universe or the appearance of life to be something of reasoned intention: one that may require a creator?

Originally posted by bojimoji5
Atheism is a religion like any of the main stream culprits...It starts as a matter of 'faith'...that there is no 'God'.

No, atheism is most certainly not a religion. Lack of belief in deities is not an article of faith. It's a certitude formed from the lack of evidence for the existence of deities.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
How were the laws of physics set in motion when the elements they are composed of were not there?

*headsmack*

The laws of physics are not composed of elements.

I'll let that go for now and get to the heart of our discussion. Yes, many things in the universe operate without reasoned intention. I'm sure you can see this in all manners of the sciences. Why then would you expect, say, the beginning of the universe or the appearance of life to be something of reasoned intention: one that may require a creator?

*smacks your head for good measure*

Elements as in FACTORS.

As in, you know, the element of surprise?

The laws of the universe were not established until the energies within it took form to make these laws true.

---

And I've told you before, my reason is mine and mine alone. I don't herald it as absolute truth for all to embrace. It just makes sense to me for the time being.

...

Why do I feel the need to rationalize that it may not be random? I don't. I feel that it very well COULD also be the way you explain it to be.

How do I manage it? I'm usually very confused about things.

...

Personally, and this is just for me, I don't find the prospect of a universe as you describe to be very interesting.

I feel that in such a world, there really is no purpose. In reality, the only purpose one would have is the purpose they themselves create.

Which is why I guess I CAN believe in, and study, science as I do. But retain hopeful prospects.

Because in the same sense, I can vouch to establish my own slice of reason. As long as I ain't hurting anyone, what's so bad about that?

Originally posted by Conclusion
Please show me the facts that there is no creator.

Again, the one who makes the positive claim (claiming that something exists) holds the burden of proof. It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist. There is just no evidence for it, so it's only logical that we don't believe in it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Conclusion
Please show me the facts that there is no creator.

Again, the one who makes the positive claim (claiming that something exists) holds the burden of proof. It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist. There is just no evidence for it, so it's only logical that we don't believe in it.

No Webpirate said our belief gets in the way of facts. So I asked him to show me the facts. For him to say that would mean he knows the facts that prove a creator does not exist. I have already posted my proof. You just don't believe it.