See no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence...

This is as a pure as sound reasoning gets. It's precisely valid reasoning.

No so at all.

The example I gave clearly defies happenstance. No need to even 'search' for a pattern.

The observation is blatant. The universe is filled with "countess infinities of atoms", yet there are only about 100 different kinds.

That flies in the face of anything that could even remotely be called "happenstance".

No need to search for any "patterns" at all.

All known designs = P

The universe = Q

P has 1(intent), 2(purpose), 3(order), 4(designer)

Q seems to have 3

How does the rest follow?

Both apple pie and coffee have sugar. Is an apple pie a drink because of that and that alone? Is coffee a dessert because of that and that alone?

The universe cannot be logically said to be a design simply because it seems to share the attribute of order.

Now you lost me. How is that evidence of intentional design??? I am not being a smartass here either. ????

Well, think about it.

You've got less than hand-full atoms to work with. Those few parts must come together on their own accord to create stars that can burn dependably for billions of years, and create even more sophisticaed parts in the process to spew out, so they can go on to create planets upon which living beings can crawl around on.

And life evolves from such a very limited few atoms?

Happenstance?

Just exactly what are we calling 'happenstance' here?

If you got a box in the mail that contained precisely what you need top build a sentient robot, would you assume that the box was just filled with random junk?

I doubt it very much.

Well, we got a "Big Bang" in the mail so-to-speak that just happens to contain all the right parts in it to create stars, planets, and self-programming beings, with hardly any extraneous parts left over at all (if any).

Why should we think that is happenstance?

Like I say. The evidence is vivid. The choice is yours.

To conclude happenstance in the face of this evidence would be utterly silly, IMHO.

And I didn't even rehash the part about the quantum field only allowing these particular atoms to 'pop' into existence?

A mail-order supply house that only ships out the very few parts necessary to create a living universe?

Happenstance?

I don't think so.

Just because there is limited amount of something that exists, shows that there is an intentional design how?

Quoted for truth...



Every argument in favor of a designed universe boils down to this.

It not a limited 'amount' of something. On the contary, it a huge amount of a very few and very special unique things. Things that quantum physics shows us are not 'happenstance' at all but are being 'created' be very strict rules.

Secondly, the fact that those 'few' different things are indeed extremely few (only about 100 of them), and it is only these extremely few parts that automatically come together to produce such complex self-programing living beings, totally flies in the face of anything that could even remotely be called "happenstance".

So happenstance (as we know it) must be ruled out.

The only way to keep "happenstance" is to accept that our particular universe is an extremely rare event. In fact, to support this hypothesis what is usually offered is that there are actually infinitely many universes and we just happen to be in one of the extremely few where this condition was right (by happenstance)

But what does that say. All that says, is that we recognize that the univere is not happenstance if it only happened ONCE. But if we pretend that there are infinitely many "failed" universes then we can justify calling this univerese "happenstance".

So to believe in this hypothesis requires having faith there there exists infinitely many random "Failed" universe.

All that just to avoid having to confess that this universe is so special that it could never reasonably be considered to be happenstance in its own right.

How hard-up are we to be atheists?

We'd rather place our faith in an imagined infinity of failed universes just to claim that this one is 'happenstance' rather than to consider that we might not be the only conscious intelligent minds around?

Not only is that silly, but it's quite an arrogant human-centric thing to do too doncha think?

I don't agree still.

It doesn't compute as proof of anything to me.

So randomness is equal to limitless?

The only thing I can attribute to such a notion is the genuine repugnance of manmade religions. I think religions like Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism have left such horrid fears and utter disgust in people that they never want to hear about a 'creator' ever again.

In all honesty. I can't say I blame them.

No one said it was 'proof' of anything.

The bottom line is that even the cosmologists recognize that the only way it makes sense to assume that our universe is happenstance is to imagine that it just one of infinitely many random universes most of which are fully of lifeless garbage.

And many cosmologists do indeed imagine just that.

I'm not sure why there is such a phobia of "Intelligent Design" that people would rather believe there are infinitely many garbage universe just to justify that this one is happenstance.

The only thing I can attribute to such a notion is the genuine repugnance of manmade religions. I think religions like Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism have left such horrid fears and utter disgust in people that they never want to hear about a 'creator' ever again.

In all honesty. I can't say I blame them.

The manmade religions on this planet have truly been utterly disgusting.

I too would rather be an atheist than to believe in hateful jealous godheads who cast innocent people into hell fires for not worshiping their graven images and following their bigoted churches.

So in some sense I can truly understand the atheist's disgust of spirituality.

Fortunately I was able to overcome the trauma of such horrid pictures of angry unrighteous godheads.

So now I can consider Intelligent Design without fear or repugnance. I don't need to resort to imaginaing infinitely many failed universe just to justify that this one is happenstance.

I actually like the idea of Intelligent Design. Once you get past the traumatic dogma of hateful religions it's not a bad concept to embrace.

I think if humanity had never had never gone through the trauma of their hateful manmade religions people would be far more apt to embrace and be excited about the discovery that the universe can't be happenstance after all. It would be a new and fresh idea that there might actually be some intelligence behind it all.

But due to the traumatic and oppressive religious history of humanity (and the continued religious hostilities even to this very day), it's truly no wonder people just want to puke at the idea that there might be an intelligence behind reality.

I don't blame them at all. Manmade religions are horrid.

This idea came up in another thread, but since the topic of that thread is interesting in and of itself, I wanted to allow for this side discussion's growth - if need be.



I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe.

I cannot provide proof of what started the galaxy or universe or what started everything, but I do find it very interesting that scientists have found planets that they claim could hold life! 32 of them last time I read an article about it!

Now if only we could find a way to get spaceships like the Star Trek Enterprise to go there. I bet we might find more answers to the questions we have possed for thousands of years if we could get off this planet and out of this universe.

Happy Halloween everybody by the way!