Quote from: defiantMaybe it is extreme luck that we are here, or maybe it isn't at all. according to science it is. if the creation of the universe is a one shot deal, it would seem even more peculiar, even though the probability of this type of life would be the same at each inception of the universe.
Maybe it is extreme luck that we are here, or maybe it isn't at all.
Quote from: defiantMaybe it is extreme luck that we are here, or maybe it isn't at all. according to science it is. if the creation of the universe is a one shot deal, it would seem even more peculiar, even though the probability of this type of life would be the same at each inception of the universe. you can take what you want from that, personally i find it a very strong argument for a higher power of the universe.
extreme luck? to quote richard dawkins: "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were a 'theory of chance', it wouldn't work." i encourage you to dig deeper and really try to understand that science isn't a bunch of god hating know-it-alls.
first, the solid scientific theories are for one big bang.
Actually I think it's the other way around: If you Believe in God, and your God is Omnipotent, then by definition you must believe your God is *capable* letting the Big Bang be totally random, and still result in what we see today.If your God can't do that, then your God isn't Omnipotent.An Omnipotent God would by definition have to be capable of setting up the preconditions for the Big Bang to be totally random, and yet still yield the possibility of it unfolding exactly as we see today.So if you believe in an Omnipotent God, then you must believe in the possibility that God didn't tamper with the Universe in any way and that He could have set it up to be totally random at the Big Bang.Regards,quadz
all the observable evidence is from the start of the big bang, and the scientific laws are only suited for one big bang.
Everything we see in Nature wasn't created through random events.
Quote from: dahangextreme luck? to quote richard dawkins: "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were a 'theory of chance', it wouldn't work." i encourage you to dig deeper and really try to understand that science isn't a bunch of god hating know-it-alls.dahang, i would like to know your thoughts on my response. while darwanism isn't about chance, the inception of the universe is (a random low chance to get a universe like ours). certainly darwninism can't be used as an analogy to the creation of the universe based on probabilities. in darwanism things are more likley, and not random, where at the beggining of a big bang, the way the universe forms is random. so how could darwanism be used to describe the creation of the universe. would some type of trend apply, even though the theories don't seem analogous.
In other words, far from scientists believing everything is 100% random, a couple well-defined sources of randomness (or, rather unpredictability) have been discovered: quantum uncertainty; and information loss in black holes.
to say everything must have a cause, god must as well (as russel said). in the very BEGINNING there should NOT be a highly complex all-powerful being, because that in itself requires a HUGE explanation (far greater than any universe).