Atheism = Desperation

[Esquilax]

[quote='ChadWooters' pid='788737' dateline='1415029000']
Now you are well on your way to understanding why the first mover is the necessary to regulate the movement of things from potentiality to actuality....

By your logic a rock must be designed because it will never just instantaneously lift off and fly into space. Since when has existence within a limited set of variables ever implied design?(emphasis mine)

The fact that you think the unmoved mover has anything at all to do with a design argument demonstrates your appalling ignorance. That type of arrogant ignorance is why I do not take your objections seriously and no one else should either.

Oh, I fucking misspoke. Get off your high horse and address the goddamn meat of my argument instead of nitpicking at individual words.

[Neo-Scholastic]

By your logic a rock must be designed because it will never just instantaneously lift off and fly into space. Since when has existence within a limited set of variables ever implied design?

(emphasis mine)
[/quote]

Oh, I fucking misspoke. Get off your high horse and address the goddamn meat of my argument instead of nitpicking at individual words.
[/quote]Then please rephrase. What word/phrase did you intend to use? Perhaps you meant "essense"?

[RobbyPants]

Observing opened up the gates to admit & conclude by every scientist in the world, that our universe is ruled & governed by an invisible law which is not viewable outside the written form of a mathematical equation or a chemical formula.

More accurately: the universe is predictable. We have created math for the sole purpose of easily communicating certain truths about the universe.

You're reading too much into it, and giving God credit where it is due to humans (math).

Just like a band of cavemen who found an archeological monument, instead of admitting that somebody built it, the cavemen just said "it's randomly built !! nature built it".

Your first problem is that you're summing up our beliefs with a bad argument. We've seen buildings and monuments built by humans. We've never seen a universe built by someone. Your argument takes this form:

• Watches are complex.
  
• We know watches are built.
  
• The universe is complex, sharing this quality with the watch.
  
• Therefore, the universe must share the quality of being created with the watch.
  

Let me show you why this is specious:

• Watches are complex.
  
• We know watches have gears.
  
• A CPU is complex, sharing this quality with the watch.
  
• Therefore, a CPU must share the quality of having gears with the watch.
  

Atheists are desperate from the idea of a merciful beautiful god, who actually gave this universe a law after creating it.
...
While a Muslim scientist is not desperate at all. There is an entity which made all of this, the signs are there, and an entity that created all of this cannot be lesser than the one & only "god". Allah in Arabic.

How does the notion of "universe with predictable laws" at all indicate a "merciful, beautiful god"? This is a non sequitur.

Desperation is very bad. It's not just bad, it's evil actually to see the universe, and just plainly and simply say "this is randomly created".

How is that "evil"? That doesn't even make sense.

It defies science. It's a desperate act of utter desperation.

No, that's not science. You're shoehorning in your own previously-held religious belies for the purpose of getting the result you want. That's the exact opposite of science. Until you can put your own religious biases behind you, you will not be honestly evaluating things like this.

[Faith No More]

Even Micrometeoroids are mentioned in this book "literally".

Ha! Your use of quotes is fucking hilarious.

[Esquilax]

Then please rephrase. What word/phrase did you intend to use? Perhaps you meant "essense"?

"Created"? "Prime moved"? Who cares?

That's my point: that one specific word is not key to the point I was making, which should have been obvious from, you know, the rest of the post?

How does "exists within a set of parameters as opposed to just... whatever, whenever," imply "must have had a prime mover"? What would make you think that, absent some creative force starting the universe, that absolutely everything would be possible at all times?

[ManMachine]

Um, there were no chemicals involved in the Big Bang, Atlas, nor was it anything to do with any collision. So if your kerrang mentions any of these things in that context, it's flat out factually wrong.

Are you sure? I distinctly remember tales of a chap with a large red stick of TNT, wielding a match like a cosmic... actually that might have been a Road Runner episode...

God... Wile E Cyote... it's hard to tell some fictional characters apart, if only those who wrote about god actually gave him some noteworthy characteristic, or at least more literary substance than a cartoon.

MM

[Neo-Scholastic]

How does "exists within a set of parameters as opposed to just... whatever, whenever," imply "must have had a prime mover"?

Because a cause is necessary to define that set of parameters. What category of cause explains the existence of a set of parameters? Methodological naturalism provides only two options: material and efficient.

What would make you think that, absent some creative force starting the universe, that absolutely everything would be possible at all times?

(emphasis mine)Again your misunderstanding of the unmoved mover argument shows. As formulated by Aquinas, the unmoved mover argument says nothing about the initial conditions of the universe and, in fact, applies whether the universe had a specific temporal start or is eternal.

[Esquilax]

Because a cause is necessary to define that set of parameters. What category of cause explains the existence of a set of parameters? Methodological naturalism provides only two options: material and efficient.

Two things. The first is that your argument simply doesn't follow; causes may influence the preceding set of parameters, but there is no reason to think they are required for parameters to exist. When we speak of the inception of the universe we're talking about an event for which we don't have much of an understanding beyond the fact that it doesn't even necessarily have to behave in ways comprehensible to normal causality; why do you feel the need to force our current universe's framework over the top of that, knowing full well that it may not apply? Essentially, you're not going to be able to cover for your first assertion by just making a second.

Secondly, you're a specific brand of christian, no? So isn't it a little disingenuous that you keep arguing for deistic creator forces, rather than what you actually believe?

Again your misunderstanding of the unmoved mover argument shows. As formulated by Aquinas, the unmoved mover argument says nothing about the initial conditions of the universe and, in fact, applies whether the universe had a specific temporal start or is eternal.

I take your point but then, given that we're having a discussion based around this specific claim that the universe came into being at random and how I find that idea to be a strawman, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the discussion is about... well, the formation of the universe?

[TubbyTubby]

What mainly makes me believe in the Quran, is the comparison between the theory and what came in the book itself. That's the main reason that makes me choose it as a faith.

Although I may regret asking, could you tell me what process you went through in discarding all other current religions and finally settling on Islam as your faith? Was it a result of an extensive study of the thousands of false religions that made you 'choose' Islam?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...when we speak of the inception of the universe we're talking about an event for which we don't have much of an understanding beyond the fact that it doesn't even necessarily have to behave in ways comprehensible to normal causality...

You keep bring up the beginning of the universe and I have already pointed out that it is irrelevant. What does matter is that sensible bodies have dispositional properties, in the here and now, that include certain potentials and exclude others. Their various dispositions contingent on something other than themselves and that contingency is what makes things actualize in the way that they do.

Secondly, you're a specific brand of christian, no? So isn't it a little disingenuous that you keep arguing for deistic creator forces, rather than what you actually believe?

Then you do not understand that for which I am arguing (no surprise there). In New Church theology, like orthodox branches of Christianity, believes that God is a creator, but also, the sustainer of everything that exists from moment to moment.