The universe is natural, it can't be down to chance. Or can it?

Whateverman

Well-known member
What has the power to corrupt "God's" perfect design?
Nah, god chose to create it imperfect; it was "very good".

Why a perfect deity would create an imperfect thing and then whine when it got corrupted (which I guess is supposed to be worse than imperfect) seems kinda childish...
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
chance: the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design

If the universe can't be down to "the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design"...

Then the universe must include obvious design.

To be honest, I am surprised...

But I am glad that atheists agree with me that the universe can't be down to chance.
Are you referring to the existence of the universe, i.e., the one off event that may have happened around 14 billions years ago? Or do you mean the events and structures with in it?

If the former, I do not think we can say one way or the other.

Fir the latter, its complicated. At the quantum level, it is all randomness. But at the macroscopic scale, that randomness leads to predictable processes and complex ordered structures.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
How did it become corrupted?
What has the power to corrupt "God's" perfect design?
God. He got angry with Adam and Eve, and in a fit of temper cursed the world.

Read Genesis carefully; it is clear the Fall happened after God had discovered the fruit was eaten, not when they ate it. Eating it just gave them knowledge of good and evil.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Actually it is "random chance" vs "NOT random chance".

Either the universe came into existence BY random chance... WITHOUT conscious decision and WITHOUT any obvious design.

Or the universe came into existence NOT by random chance... WITH conscious decision and WITH obvious design.

random: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision

chance: the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design


Since you say the laws of nature are NON-random (and random means WITHOUT conscious decision)...

Then that means the laws of nature were made WITH conscious decision.

So WHO made the non-random laws of nature by conscious decision?
still the false dichotomy.
Why must there be a "who"?
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
still the false dichotomy.
Why must there be a "who"?

In order for there to be "conscious decision".

Can anything other than a "who" make a "conscious decision"?


Since YOU say the laws of nature are NON-random (and random means WITHOUT conscious decision)...

Then that means the laws of nature were made WITH conscious decision.

random: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
I see order but little design. Also, for design to be something you observe rather than presuppose, you'd have to know what an absence of design would look like - and according to Christian theism, everything is designed - so you have no baseline for comparison.
All you are doing is claiming accidents or chance can produce a design that functions. Design is seen in its function.

I do not need to believe everything is designed, I just do not ignore the obvious design. That would be intellectual dishonesty against myself.

If by chance the universe came to be, ordered and functional so as to suggest fantastical design, but not really designed, it fell into order, by chance.

I have no faith nor evidence to believe that. It would take much faith to believe that, a lot. More than possible for me because there is no evidence of designless function. Is there anything in this universe that does not serve a function, therefore a purpose? I don't believe believe so.

But there is evidence for a designed functional universe. If you say by chance, then you must show evidence. Another universe might do it, if by chance you can find one.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
No. Mutations are only one form of genetic change; other forms not random at all.

I will rephrase my question for more clarity...

This is a quote from Dr. Laurence Loewe (School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.)
"Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms."

This is a quote from @Mr Laurier (post #28)...
"mutations are random."

So do you AGREE or DISAGREE with this statement...
"Random mutations (changes in the genetic sequence) are a main cause of diversity among organisms."
 

Furion

Well-known member
Can you give me an example of something that on your view is the product of neither human design nor God's design?

As I said already, I know of no evidence of anything that has a designless function.

If you know of anything, let me know.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
All you are doing is claiming accidents or chance can produce a design that functions. Design is seen in its function.
No, I would not claim this. My view is that the universe is not here by accident or chance.
If by chance the universe came to be, ordered and functional so as to suggest fantastical design, but not really designed, it fell into order, by chance.
Another possibility would be necessity, it being the only way it could be.
I have no faith nor evidence to believe that. It would take much faith to believe that, a lot. More than possible for me because there is no evidence of designless function. Is there anything in this universe that does not serve a function, therefore a purpose? I don't believe believe so.
What about an asteroid in the asteroid belt aimlessly whizzing about?
But there is evidence for a designed functional universe. If you say by chance, then you must show evidence. Another universe might do it, if by chance you can find one.
What is this evidence?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I will rephrase my question for more clarity...

This is a quote from Dr. Laurence Loewe (School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.)
"Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms."

This is a quote from @Mr Laurier (post #28)...
"mutations are random."

So do you AGREE or DISAGREE with this statement...
"Random mutations (changes in the genetic sequence) are a main cause of diversity among organisms."
I think the phrase "a main cause" is too ambiguous. However, for the sake of this thread/discussion/exercise, I agree with your statement. It follows logically.

I wonder if Mr. Loewe and Mr. Laurier are using the same term in the same way, though...
 
Top