why is the existance of God so absurd

Absurd.

Xn state that something is caused things around and name it the 1st cause.


Xn state that something is caused things around to move and name it the 1st mover

etc.

Anyone who familiar with the Bible know that this sommething is known to Xn as G-d, the 1st coause or unmoved mover etc.

Total randomness not only does not exist in the observed reality. It is cannot be within a human mind with healthy mentality. Nobody ( with heallthy mentality) even can say what is randomness.
Because as soon as you define it it is not random.

 

its sad that when it comes to the existence of a God an religion people on both sides have to bash each other and cant have a civil conversation.

I can say but my guess would be chaos. There would be the absence of the things that lets the universe exist as it is.

 

Double post sorry

 

circulus viciosus. It is inconsistent to require that things have a cuase and explain that requirement by appealing to an exception.

Besides, he said nothing of the sort. He offered only that there must be either intentional design or total randomness...which is wrong, a false dichotomy.

He also said nothing about the Bible in the original post.

This just shows a significant ignorance of the relevant math.

 

Then Xn need to catch up on modern physics. No remotely scientifically educated person in the modern world can take the unmoved mover argument seriously. In order to believe this argument, you'd have to believe that the natural state of all things would be at absolute zero and unmoving in all inertial frames of reference.

Thanks to thermodynamics, we know that all things move naturally (unless they are at absolute zero, which has never been observed, and even then, they still move relative to other inertial frames of reference). We also know that motion is relative and "at rest" means at rest relative to a certain inertial frame of reference. Nothing has ever been observed to be completely at rest. We also know that, just as a stationary object will remain stationary unless acted upon by another force, an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. There is no reason to believe that stillness is the natural state of things; it makes just as much sense to say that motion is the natural state of things (actually, that makes much more sense, since everything we have ever seen has been in motion).

The unmoved mover argument is as dead as the notion that the earth is flat.

You mentioned that true randomness has never been observed? Well, neither has true stillness.

And anyone familiar with the Quran knows it is Allah. Besides, these arguments are from Aristotle, not the Bible, and I'm assuming you don't believe that the Greek gods are the unmoved movers of this universe.

 

You still have not fixed the main problem, your false dichotomy. If I said to you that every person is either 100% rational and machine-like or completely loony-tunes crazy, would you agree?

 

But what would that look like? What would we observe? We have to answer that question before we can claim that the universe appears to be designed: what would it appear like if it wasn't designed?

That's essentially saying, "Well, I don't know, but whatever reality looks like, it would look like something else." That's just stacking the deck.

That's like saying that bigfoot exists and then saying, "Well, I don't know what the evidence out there is, but whatever it is, that's what we should expect to see if bigfoot exists and we should see the opposite of whatever is out there is bigfoot didn't exist."

 

You're getting to a good point. Even if the universe is totally random, there is nothing preventing it from just happening to look exactly as it does.

 

Exactly. If something were truly and completely random, we couldn't make predictions about what it should result in. Even a world that worked like clockwork would be no more or less likely than a "chaotic" universe.

I hear a lot of theists say, "If the universe were random, we should expect . . ." No, if it were truly random, we shouldn't expect anything.

The bigger point, though, is the one you made earlier. Creation and total chaos are not the only two options.

 

Well I would not say complete loony-tunes but i would say that there would be alot less together than. With the absence of intelligent design sure there would be things that exist that are together but for the most part not. It is that fact that we have everything that works together quite well and in harmony (Humans tend to screw things up though) but the world as it is is was created with systems that keeps everything in order.

For instance i guis look at the solar system. With intelligent design it is the way that it is. However with out it woe could have 3 planets circling the sun others floating out by themselves chaotically or not any planets at all. Maybe instead of a full spherical plannet there would be a bunch of hemispheres or oblong shape clusters of mater.

 

But even your first statement is not entirely true from a mathematical perspective. A genuinely random sequence will have pockets of regularity. A sequence of 6 9's appears in pi beginning at the 762nd decimal place, for example.

Statistical analysis of digits in pi suggest that the distribution of digits in pi is random (meaning no digit is represented more often than the others), though this is of course based on a limited sample of several billion digits. But still sequences appear such as the one mentioned above. If we analogize the universe we now live in with being in the middle of one of those sequences, we might look around our pi universe and say "It's all 9's. There is no way that just happened randomly." This is the equivalent of what creationists mean when they appeal to intelligent design.

Further, an infinite (or at least very long) sequence of digits that contains absolutely no patterns like the series of 9's in pi would be suspicious. Such "total" chaos would actually be a reason to suspect that someone tinkered with the sequence and that it is NOT random.

To summarize:
1) A genuinely random long sequence should, by virtue of its randomness, contain some regular sequences that could lead to "false positives" as far as concluding intentionality.

2) A long sequence totally lacking in regularity is reason to suspect non-randomness and, hence, intentionality.

 

Why? If it were truly random, there would be no reason to assume that it would one way instead of another. If you could make predictions like that, it wouldn't truly be random.

Again, why would you assume that.

. . . you mean like the rest of the universe?

The spherical shapes of the planets are caused by gravity, not intelligence.

The universe is full of all sorts of shapes of clustered matter.

 

See my previous post. Your grasp of the implications of randomness and non-randomness is lacking.

 

well we probably wouldn't observe anything because we may not exist.

In any theory of the creation of the world there is the idea of this is what we think happened we don't know exactly what happened or how it happened but atheist say we know it didn't happen this way.

The people who believe in the big bang cant say what the big bang looked like but they have an idea of how it may have happened.

I can say what God looks like or what his abilities are or how he created the world but I can look on the world and see that this world is too perfect to have happened by chance.

 

Didn't something like that happen with the shuffle feature on the IPOD? When it was randomized, people thought it wasn't because it would play songs by the same artist back-to-back occasionally. So now, instead of being randomized, the programming interferes with the randomization to stop things like that from happening. They had to insert more intelligent design to make it "appear" less intentional.

I think I see what you mean. I've heard the same thing said about supposed "miracles." A universe in which nothing unlikely ever happened would be more evidence for supernatural interference than one in which the unlikely sometimes happened.

 

I hadn't hears this but don't doubt it. I was going to describe exactly the same thing but without using a real-world event. "Total" chaos can only be a result of "checking" for sequences and "manually" scattering them.

 

The same could be said of an Intelligent Designer. He could have just as easily not created the universe at all, or one that resembles the universe you described earlier with hemi-spherical planets and chaotic orbits.

Sure, in a sense, unless we see some evidence to believe otherwise. I'm sure there are plenty of creation stories that you would need evidence for before you believed them.

And I could just as easily say that it is not perfect enough to have happened intentionally.

 

well i guess to put it this way take a die roll it 10 times you you come up with a random assortment of numbers. Thats the big bang theory.

Take the and place it on the ground 10 times you can come up with any assortment of numbers you wish. Thats the God theory.

The point of this thread is simply to point out that the theory of a Creator is no more improbable than that of all of this happening by chance even though many atheist teat it as it is.

 

See my above post

 

1) No it's not. 2) Even then, you can roll 10 6's. It's unlikely but not impossible.

Note I haven't even begun to talk about non-randomness in the universe as we actually perceive it. But as yet you have offered nothing that "cracks the code" on randomness.

 

IT just and observation. If there is no 1st cause the fact of things are causing each other wouldn’t be observed. In other words if there was an infinite amount of happenings before we see what we see (we would have to wait an infinity)

(Besides it is not necessary for the UM to give a push, it may be the end of all movement of things towards the UM.)

Indeed randomness is out of the Q. The suggestion that there is Intelligence is questionable, only because there is a whole group of people who do not have any. They call themselves atheists.

It does not mean that he did not include Xns.

-It is you who are stupid.
-No it is you who are stupid.
-get education.
-No you get education.

Thanks for demonstration infantilism of atheistic mentality. Show me on atheists who has not been using your argument as the winning one.
Kindergarten.

 

I sure wish you had said this originally. It would have avoided a lot of your fallacies!

There are (at least) two problems with the creator hypothesis.
1) There is nothing about a creator that necessarily implies Godhood. Meaning, even if there was a creator, it might not have been a god.
2) Appeal to a miraculous creator is, however, always a problem, because any sort of universe can be explained by appeal to it and thus nothing has been explained. To put it simply, appeal to a miraculous creator is inherently non-explanatory.

 

Actually, we do have an idea how the big bang came about, I suggest reading A Brief History of Time, Fabric of the Cosmos, The Elegant Universe, etc.

 

That things are caused does not imply there was a first one. Your fallacy here is that you treat infinitely long ago as a particular point. Look it up

 

Your understanding of the implications of randomness are lacking. It has nothing to do with my mentality.