Does atheism make sense?

[RobbyPants]

'Laws' don't come into being by accident; order is only possible with control by something or someone.  To believe that everything that exists, and the laws governing everything, came about by random chance requires an imagination without limits.

There is a difference between "laws" that people create and the "laws" of physics. The first is an artificial construct created by people. The second is a term we give to something that is observable and behaves the exact same every time we observe it.

There is nothing explicit about the second type of "law" that demands intelligent design.

[alphaparticle]

 

'Laws' don't come into being by accident; order is only possible with control by something or someone.  To believe that everything that exists, and the laws governing everything, came about by random chance requires an imagination without limits.

There is a difference between "laws" that people create and the "laws" of physics. The first is an artificial construct created by people. The second is a term we give to something that is observable and behaves the exact same every time we observe it.

There is nothing explicit about the second type of "law" that demands intelligent design.

 

I agree with this insofar as you can't make a direct analogy between laws some state imposes on citizens, say, and the physical laws of nature, and then declare if one requires a creator so does the other. You'd certainly need more argument than that. But, and perhaps this is what MG had in mind (?), on atheism you are left asserting that everything ultimately exists with no explanation, and that includes the order by which all the stuff interacts also. What interests me in particular about that is the order is a prerequisite to thinking in terms of physical causation and physical explanations at all. The ultimate upshot of the thread is that I don't think atheism, when you take that into consideration, should be considered the default position, as it is at least no simpler than your basic theism, which posits God as the explanation for not only the exist of all the physical stuff, but its ordering as well. Yes, you are required to posit God's existence on theism, but what you get back is a lot of explanatory power over a lot of stuff we are forced to accept about the world that we'd otherwise be forced to merely posit as brute fact.

[enoob57]

 

 

'Laws' don't come into being by accident; order is only possible with control by something or someone.  To believe that everything that exists, and the laws governing everything, came about by random chance requires an imagination without limits.

There is a difference between "laws" that people create and the "laws" of physics. The first is an artificial construct created by people. The second is a term we give to something that is observable and behaves the exact same every time we observe it.

There is nothing explicit about the second type of "law" that demands intelligent design.

 

I agree with this insofar as you can't make a direct analogy between laws some state imposes on citizens, say, and the physical laws of nature, and then declare if one requires a creator so does the other. You'd certainly need more argument than that. But, and perhaps this is what MG had in mind (?), on atheism you are left asserting that everything ultimately exists with no explanation, and that includes the order by which all the stuff interacts also. What interests me in particular about that is the order is a prerequisite to thinking in terms of physical causation and physical explanations at all. The ultimate upshot of the thread is that I don't think atheism, when you take that into consideration, should be considered the default position, as it is at least no simpler than your basic theism, which posits God as the explanation for not only the exist of all the physical stuff, but its ordering as well. Yes, you are required to posit God's existence on theism, but what you get back is a lot of explanatory power over a lot of stuff we are forced to accept about the world that we'd otherwise be forced to merely posit as brute fact.

 

No but the wisdom of seeing the unity within the laws as one... take away one and they become naught as each hold up the all of what we see...

that is the suggested intelligence of the design-> none could progressively evolved without all being in place for the platform of the whole to exist! 

That which is seen as random is actually held by unity of law as God Who 'IS' that unity of Oneness uses that which He has created as example

of The Who of Him-

Rom 1:20-23

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen,

being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and

Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew

God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in

their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise,

they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an

image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and

creeping things.

NKJV

 Love, Steven

[RustyAngeL]

It makes no sense to me at all.  To be able to believe that all of this universe happened by mistake or just by chance  is to far fetched for me to even begin to believe it.  I believe God almighty spoke it all into existence and knew my name even before the foundations of this world was laid.  It gives me hope. What can being an atheist give?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

'Laws' don't come into being by accident; order is only possible with control by something or someone.  To believe that everything that exists, and the laws governing everything, came about by random chance requires an imagination without limits.

There is a difference between "laws" that people create and the "laws" of physics. The first is an artificial construct created by people. The second is a term we give to something that is observable and behaves the exact same every time we observe it.

There is nothing explicit about the second type of "law" that demands intelligent design.

 

Yes it does demand intelligent design because these laws behave intelligently.   Uniformity, order, predictability are things that scientists depend on to do science.  The fact that we have a planet that is so fine tuned to support life is evidence of an intelligence behind all that exists.  These laws make it possible for life to exist on this planet.  Everything from biological life to the biosphere works in harmony to make this a hospitable planet.  

 

Even our location in the galaxy puts us in the perfect location for space exploration.  We would not be able to see any of the galaxies and other phenomena of outer space were we position further inward toward the inner rings of the galaxy.  There is an observable intelligent behavior in the way the planet is able to reproduce all of the natural resources we need.

 

Our need and ability to create, invent, discover, etc. is a reflection of our Creator who made us in His image and likeness.  The part of us that admires great works of art, or stands in awe of Grand Canyon or other great natural wonders is the part of us that was made to be in awe of God's glory.   We were created and hardwired to admire Him, but we have chosen to worshihp the creation rather than the Creator.

[RobbyPants]

Yes it does demand intelligent design because these laws behave intelligently.   Uniformity, order, predictability are things that scientists depend on to do science.  The fact that we have a planet that is so fine tuned to support life is evidence of an intelligence behind all that exists.  These laws make it possible for life to exist on this planet.  Everything from biological life to the biosphere works in harmony to make this a hospitable planet.  

 

Even our location in the galaxy puts us in the perfect location for space exploration.  We would not be able to see any of the galaxies and other phenomena of outer space were we position further inward toward the inner rings of the galaxy.  There is an observable intelligent behavior in the way the planet is able to reproduce all of the natural resources we need.

 

Our need and ability to create, invent, discover, etc. is a reflection of our Creator who made us in His image and likeness.  The part of us that admires great works of art, or stands in awe of Grand Canyon or other great natural wonders is the part of us that was made to be in awe of God's glory.   We were created and hardwired to admire Him, but we have chosen to worshihp the creation rather than the Creator.

Predictability and intelligence aren't the same thing.

Just because the universe is finely tuned or really complex doesn't mean that it was created. The problem with the watchmaker argument (that all complex things need a creator) assumes that watches and universes share the same quality of needing a creator, when all we can observe is that they both share the same quality of being complex. Saying that everything that is complex must require a creator is assuming that those traits must be linked. We know watches have makers because we've seen watches be made; no one has ever gone to a universe factory.

[MorningGlory]

 

'Laws' don't come into being by accident; order is only possible with control by something or someone.  To believe that everything that exists, and the laws governing everything, came about by random chance requires an imagination without limits.

There is a difference between "laws" that people create and the "laws" of physics. The first is an artificial construct created by people. The second is a term we give to something that is observable and behaves the exact same every time we observe it.

There is nothing explicit about the second type of "law" that demands intelligent design.

 

 

I'm fully aware of the meaning of 'laws' as I used the term above; learned that stuff in elementary school, my friend.   

[MorningGlory]

 

Yes it does demand intelligent design because these laws behave intelligently.   Uniformity, order, predictability are things that scientists depend on to do science.  The fact that we have a planet that is so fine tuned to support life is evidence of an intelligence behind all that exists.  These laws make it possible for life to exist on this planet.  Everything from biological life to the biosphere works in harmony to make this a hospitable planet.  

 

Even our location in the galaxy puts us in the perfect location for space exploration.  We would not be able to see any of the galaxies and other phenomena of outer space were we position further inward toward the inner rings of the galaxy.  There is an observable intelligent behavior in the way the planet is able to reproduce all of the natural resources we need.

 

Our need and ability to create, invent, discover, etc. is a reflection of our Creator who made us in His image and likeness.  The part of us that admires great works of art, or stands in awe of Grand Canyon or other great natural wonders is the part of us that was made to be in awe of God's glory.   We were created and hardwired to admire Him, but we have chosen to worshihp the creation rather than the Creator.

Predictability and intelligence aren't the same thing.

Just because the universe is finely tuned or really complex doesn't mean that it was created. The problem with the watchmaker argument (that all complex things need a creator) assumes that watches and universes share the same quality of needing a creator, when all we can observe is that they both share the same quality of being complex. Saying that everything that is complex must require a creator is assuming that those traits must be linked. We know watches have makers because we've seen watches be made; no one has ever gone to a universe factory.

 

 

Anything, and everything, that was ever created  was created by SOMEONE.  Name one thing that came into being from nothing.  Since the natural laws behave consistently there is no way they can be called random or undirected.  The nonbeliever position is one learned from satan and not the result of independent thinking.   

[Guest]

If I understand your second point, it basically says nature cannot explain its own existence as in order for nature to work you need nature to begin with. Is that what you're getting at? If I understand where you're coming from, can't I reverse the question and ask how God explains his own existence? 

 

~

 

God

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 1:8

 

Man

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6

 

Grace

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

[RobbyPants]

As for God being a superior explanatory hypothesis, sure it is one thing, but like ID, it has no real explanatory power IMO. On the surface it sounds good, and it can certainly make sense if you presuppose the existence of such a being. But as far as explaining power, I don't see how it is better than a placeholder shouldering all the unanswered questions under one banner. For instance, if we take the order and complexity of the universe as evidence there must be a God who had the intelligence and capability to create all of this, yes we explain why there is an ordered something rather than nothing. However this God is surely also complex and 'ordered' too, not some aimlessly wandering goo of supernaturalism. So by the criteria you have for determining that the universe requires a creator, I feel I can use the same criteria to establish that God requires a creator. Doesn't that put us exactly where we started but with different names; why is there a God (with all his properties) instead of no God?

I agree. Also, it would seem that once you deem the cause of something to be "God" and not "I don't know yet. Let's find out!", you stop looking to explain the universe.

For example: if we know that A caused B, and B caused C, we understand C, and we claim God caused A, the furthest back we could really look at understanding would be B. So, if someone said "why does C work the way it does?", we could study B and attempt to understand it. We could study A to learn why B works the way it does, but as soon as someone asks about A, the answer would be "I don't know. God did it."