Products of Chance

[Reforged]

At least biblical theism offers some answers to the why questions.

A theory (atheology) which attempts to explain ''how'' but NOT ''why'' strikes me as being incomplete.

Yeeeeah, how is that working out for you by the way?
I mean life must be pretty easy considering the Bible answers your questions.
Feel like stoning unruly children? Do it! Your daughters feeling alittle frisky? Get drunk and fuck them! Hear a voice that tells you to kill your son? Better do what the fuck it says! Scared of dying? Don't be, you go to wonderland! Boss not doing what you want? Thats alright, God will do your dirty work for you and kill their first born!

You're right, the Bible has so many fantastic answers to so many complex real life situations.
You can stop typing now.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeaaah......I've personally dealt with a lot of Atheists in my time, and never heard a single one say something like that. However at least a dozen times I've heard Christians say that that is what Atheists say.

Myself, I tend to agree with the hypothesis that the Universe, or rather the Multiverse is eternal. Time/space/energy have always been here and probably always will.

[Whatkins]

... I agree with CapnAwesome. I've heard more religious people report that atheists have said this than I've heard atheists say it. :/ I suspect they derive this by simply writing down the opposite of their own belief and assuming this must be what atheists think. Not that this matter has anything to do with atheism whatsoever.

Anyway. On the origins of the universe, I advocate skepticism. Reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

[Mister Agenda]

At least biblical theism offers some answers to the why questions.

If you're happy with any answer that makes you comfortable, I suppose.

A theory (atheology) which attempts to explain ''how'' but NOT ''why'' strikes me as being incomplete.

'Atheology' would be the study of atheism and atheists. I'm flattered you think that encompasses cosmology, but real physicists (some of whom are even theists!) are driving that. And you need more than 'it strikes me as incomplete' to show it is incomplete. A lot of why questions have what or how answers.

[Darkstar]

A theory (atheology) which attempts to explain ''how'' but NOT ''why'' strikes me as being incomplete.

Oh really, then why are roses red? Sure, you could explain on a moleculer level why it is pigmented red and how our eye percieves the visible light as red, but you wouldn't have explained the purpose of red. You could explain it via natural selection in conjunction with bee's eyes, but that wouldn't apply to the singularity. If I draw a random card from a deck you can't explain the purpose drawing that card at that time, unless I give it one. There is no objective purpose for it. There is a point at which one must differentiate between a cause and a reason (both of which could fall under why). Chance cannot create anything in and of itself, but if you put chance into a scenario, then, given enough time, an unlikely outcome may happen by chance. Also, almost nothing is truly random; there are predictable laws of physics to follow.