@EmuGod:
The more complex and original the item you are trying to get, the less of a chance you have of getting that item when it is being created at random.
True, but you might have noticed that each and every of my previous posts was about showing you that it is not random.
By saying that the universe was simply created out of nothing, you are saying that there had to be a perfect sequence to the molecules coming together and forming the world.
Well, i didn’t and don’t say so, and i must admit, i don’t understand your sentence or better: the meaning of it.
Considering the age of the universe, it took some time before the first molecules were created. Second, i think i didn’t use the term perfect in regard to them. Third: the world consists of more than molecules, although for living beings molecules are most important.
Fourth: I dislike the term created out of nothing. There was no creator IMHO, thus “emerge” or “begin” or something like that would fit better.
For that to happen, these theories such as the big bang would most likely have had to happen millions and millions of times over in order for them to have reached the current stage they are in. I have trouble beleiving that things just happened out of nowhere and that random guesswork created everything.
Random would be: I hold a ball im hand, release it, and it goes up, left, right, forward, backward or down. But it doesn’t. It drops down. Everytime. No random thing in there.
Nature has some random parts, true, but there are more processes not allowed than allowed.
If that is true, then what is the whole point of having rules and regulations? Why bother with everythign we do? If there is not central body of rules or something above us to govern us, then everything as we know it does not matter and there is no meaning to anything. What makes something ethical or moral? Nothing, because there is nothing to guide us to do things.
You are skipping topics.
Your logic now sounds like:
There must be a god, as otherwise there would be no meaning in life.
You assume that there is a meaning in life, without proving that. Thus your conclusion has no basis.
You claim you believe in nature? Well, what is nature to you? Why is there this nature of things? If everything is from a random sequence of events, then anything is possible then nature is merely a tendency of certain things to happen over other possibilites. If this is your definition of nature, which you consider to be the strongest force around, then there is still nothing binding us to anything.
This tendency part of nature is called Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics. That’s only one part, and as the name says it’s mainly statistics, with underlying laws of nature that have to be obeyed by the single particles although these single particles are out of reach for our observation.
For your conclusion: You are right, but “everything from a random sequence of events” is an invalid basis, thus your conclusion is wrong.
For the first three questions: Yes, i “believe” in nature. Nature is everything around me that i can see, feel, hear, taste, smell personally and those things where i need (calibrated, to be correct) tools to detect them. The “nature of things” i call natural laws. They are there. I cannot tell why, but i can tell that if they were not (or as it seems: even slightly different from what they are) , then our universe would not be stable. Thus, i can argue that we live in a universe, because this is one of the few stable configurations of physics.
I dispute such a theory. To me, nature is nothing more than a framework set out by something larger than us that we must live in. Only G-d can break the framework and dothings beyond the framework.
Fine to me, but then don’t say that there is a mathematical prove for “god”. If god is larger than the framework, and does not obey the rules he has set in that framework, why did god keep one part of that framework useful to prove him? He must (choose to) obey to that then, correct? Why should that happen? Or is that one of the parts we can’t understand? Then i must admit that your proof is extremely weak to me, from a philosophical point of view.
We can learn as much as we want about everything, but we will never fully understand this framework and why thigns are the way there are. Why are leaves green? We might say because of chlorophyll and because green light is reflected in chloroplasts, but why specifically green?
(1) it’s abosrbed
(2) If you look at the suns spectrum, you will see that there is a high power emitted into the green range. Thus, trying to use this can allow a higher efficiency of the chloroplasts.
I say it is because the framework of the universe forces it to behave in a certain way and we cannot understand why. The ancient Greeks beleived that if we learned how things work, we would eventually learn why they work, but modern science has grown somewhat smarter. It no longer answers why but only how. We can never udnerstand why thigns are the way they are completely, and that is because we are part of this framework. Only what controls the framework can truly know how it works and why everything occurs the way it does. I hope you understand how I’ve come to all this and how it is all related. If you do, great. If not, I guess I’ll have to think of a different way to explain things.
I see your point. I agree there is some kind of “framework”. My point now is: if the framework was slightly different, then we would not be here (as our universe would not be stable) to ask about the “why”. So the answer to the “why” for me is: It is so, because if it was different, it wouldn’t “work”.
