Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

quote:

---

the whole point is this: His imagination is reality.

---

Some unnamed theologians imagination is reality ? How could that be ?

no what I mean is that i believe that Gods imagination is reality. When God imagines, he does not dream or fantasize about what already is. He creates by imagining.

Oh. But I asked why the imagination of this theologian you quoted was better than reality. He certainly seems to think so. And really that's the underlying point of the quote.

well...you have a point. But tell me...are these types of unsupported assertions the mark of arrogance simply for valuing faith over evidence?

Refusing to even fairly consider the work of others would seem to be a mark of arrogance, yes.

Word salad Phat.What it really shows is that people value evidence over belief. A belief, no matter how certain someone holds it should change we evidence refutes it and no belief should never be held as certain. Until such time as there is sufficient evidence to support the actual existence of God then you should at least admit it is only a belief and not a certainty.

I would not call it arrogance but simply foolishness.

God is an anachronism. He has been ever since we started looking for the real answers to our questions. It has nothing to do with chance. Even if God does exist, He isn't the answer to anything.

This must be your belief. I have nothing more to say.

This is where you and I disagree.

Lets start with personal beliefs.
You have always maintained your guiding precept in regards to belief is "Logic, Reason, and Reality."
I have maintained that my belief is that there is literally a spiritual war of sorts between truth and fiction, good and evil, god and satan. You were taught: "Hell? fuggedabodit!" Having a Jewish Mother as an influence in rational thought coupled with critical thinking professors at an Episcopal boarding school also contributed to your rejection of the standard party lines, sound-bites, and precepts of modern day Christianity. You state:

quote:

---

I happen to subscribe to the dogma as out lined in the Nicene Creed but I do not pretend that it is reasonable, logical, rational or understandable.

---

Thus you believe that your faith is irrational. You have provided no evidence that your faith and/or belief includes the idea that God is even approachable. You continually ask "How do we know....." which I can respect in regards to engaging educated skeptics and unbelievers in rational discussions regarding this whole "God" thing....but it is perhaps not the best way to approach belief because you value evidence over belief. So do most of them, however.

​

Then we have the Bible.
You say:

You would think that if the Bible actually was the inerrant word of God there would at least be one universal list of what books would be included.

Thus humans have always disagreed what authority scripture and sacred writings actually have. You have also mentioned a time or two that

I don't reject Bible verses; I just point out that the way people use them does not lead to something reasonable, logical understandable or rational.

. We get it. In your opinion the concept of belief in general is irrational. I believe differently. I believe that belief is stronger than evidence.

​

You mention this to be akin to foolishness. While I admit that many of the CCOI need a good dose of critical thinking and a healthy understanding of reality, I also believe we all could be wrong about what reality actually is.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

And is there any evidence that reality might be different than it actually is?And is there any reason that belief should be stronger than evidence?

Lack of belief is not a belief.

The thread is very old phat, I wrote the opening message in 2006.I think I was trying to basically say that you can't necessarily assume that something that exists as part of this universe, operated or existed before the universe. That is to put the cart before the horse. Which is logically and indeed BASICally, correct.Is it parsimonious to assume random chance or anything else we know is part of this universe, existed before the universe?If the universe was randomly created, meaning things can happen in a way consistent with this universe as we understand them, then obviously that assumes that the dice can be rolled before the dice exist.I think it is more parsimonious to at least suggest that it might not be intellectually FAIR to simply give a pre-universe existence attributes nobody can know could exist without there first being a universe to exist.I find it amusing that some atheists say that nothing is very complicated - when I say nothing existed, I mean the absence of all things. If you are saying there WAS something before the universe existed, then obviously that is a contradiction because how can something be nothing?It's a play on words alright, but not from theists. We stick to the definition - nothing means nothing, if there was nothing then "something" can't pop up according to the laws of the universe, if those laws only exist when there is a universe, and those properties only exist if the universe is present.It seems to me, people simply argue from credulity, they believe everything can happen naturally so they conclude it did, even though intelligent design is on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to the probability of something fine-tuned and orderly with specified complexity, coming about.Am I wrong to suggest that writing on the sand is more probable as coming from an intelligent designer, than it is from being created by the waves of the sea?The fact is the universe and life, are far more specific and purposeful than writing on sand.Is that not reasonable? Of course it is, these are all reasonable assumptions based on reality. There is no reality to the believe that something designed can create itself but we have millions of designs coming about BY purposeful design, every year.Good to hear from you again Phat. (I also remember that I accepted evolution-theory in 2006 for personal reasons, not for intellectual reasons. Basically I went through a rough time so I took it out on God.)

(The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)

That is true but I have done my homework and I don't believe the readers have. For example I have studied the elements of intelligent design to see if they are contained in lifeforms, what we usually find in things we know to be designed such as sophisticated animated designs, is usually of the following which isn't just a list but has to be understood by studying why they apply:- Specified complexity
- Irreducible complexity (I am not arguing that it always applies to any feature)
- Congruity of all parts aimed towards an overal goal and sub-goals
- Contingency planning
- Correct materials.
- Ingenious solutions to difficult problems
- Information
- Information storage density
- Directed energy
- Aesthetics and symmetry
- Clear goals and sub-goals.Dr A, for me personally, I think intelligent design isn't the elephant in the room, bur rather it is akin to a thousand elephants in a matchbox.I don't want to turn this thread into a, "Mike, please prove I.D, thread" so don't you think it is at least fair to say that the things you yourself might call "appearance of design" are at least expected-evidence if the universe is designed?That is to say, if the universe is designed then we would expect to find intelligent design, and since the only way we could know it was there was to find out what makes something intelligently designed in the first place then basically I am arguing the same argument as the Law Of Identity. (X is X).In the form of a formal syllogism it looks like this; Every element that makes a human makes them human.
Dr A has the elements of human(human DNA, anatomy, and so forth)
Therefore Dr A is human.To read more about this issue, you may want to read the first message of the following topic but I don't wish to get into the I.D debate again because I've done it so many times now I almost fall asleep if it is mentioned:Bot Verification(this thread isn't to insult those that accept evolution, it isn't even an attempt to actually argue I.D, it is an illustration of how difficult it really is to BE objective about I.D, in real terms.)