Randomness vs Organization (Systematic-ness)
|
First a definition of Randomness or Chaos:
Atheists rely on a number of theories, including Chaos Theory, or a random act that led to the creation of the Universe. Meaning the universe came into existence from something, maybe an atom that somehow became existent, or out of nothingness something emerged. They are the same thing, but they are still unable to explain where that very very first "thing" came from that sparked the creation of the universe. Even if it evolved, it still had to begin somewhere. They will argue that this is the truth even though everything they rely on is theory, and has never ever been proven. Some may say God is theory too. God is explainable through science and systematically. But the atheist fail to acknowledge an entity so much greater than us that it is impossible to conceive. However, we'll get into that topic later. The only thing the "scientists", "philosophers" et al are doing is prolonging the inevitable question, "Where did it all come from?" They do not have an answer to this question. Instead they continue to regress infinitely. That's a cop-out without conclusion. Order leads to Order, Chaos/Randomness leads to Randomness Every single scientific paper suggests that only order leads to order and chaos will always lead to chaos or randomness. Then just simply ask yourself, why this earth, universe all work ONLY systematically. And nothing gets done at all, with a random approach to anything. The only way to move forward with life is through systems. Examples include the sub atomic system and molecular system, the eco-system, the planetary system, the universe, all of nature, and actually man-made systems) all seem to be quite systematic and not random in their existence. |
This is a good depiction of the big bang. Nothingness and then a big bang. Something caused the bang. It's not reasonable to think it was caused by nothing.
There was a bang and then time came into existence. |
Can random falling pieces of a watch lead to a fully working functioning watch?
|
-------------------------------------> You walk along the desert and find a watch. Does this watch have a maker or did it fall into place randomly? Or was it designed by someone intelligent? Does Chaos lead to an organized system? If you suggest it's all random act, why doesn't man then build the best systems using randomness? |
|
Do random bricks ever lead to precisely measured & constructed skyscrapers?
|
If the universe is a perfect system (night and day, works like clockwork, perfect distance from the sun, etc) why don't we follow the universal law of randomness and just throw bricks together? Or do we need a systematic, intelligent approach to build a building?
Does chaos lead to an organized system? ----------------------------------> If you say the universe was created randomly then you're saying exactly this. |
|
|
It is in every aspect of this world, including the universe and man made systems that ONLY organized, intelligent design and planning leads to organized systematic outcomes.
Without planning, there is no system. With planning, there is system and never chaos. If you are saying there was NO planner, then how is the universe so meticulously operating as if it was planned? |
|
Similar examples to the above:
So what conclusions do we draw from the above?
1. The creator, must be intelligent, a planner and understands system.
2. The creator, has created various systems that act as building blocks for higher systems and more complex systems.
3. There are atoms, they seem to makeup every aspect of life, starting with the tiniest of one cell'd organisms to entire eco systems, to the ocean systems, to the land and animal with food chain, to weather systems all the way up the atmospheric system to the interplanetary system, and so on. There are too many to mention as is obvious. But there is definitely evidence, that by far and above all demonstrates consistency. That now that I'm looking for it, that can be attributed to this intelligent creator. It fits. The absence of a God makes it a tougher to argue that all these planned systems were here by mere coincidence and chance.
1. The creator, must be intelligent, a planner and understands system.
2. The creator, has created various systems that act as building blocks for higher systems and more complex systems.
3. There are atoms, they seem to makeup every aspect of life, starting with the tiniest of one cell'd organisms to entire eco systems, to the ocean systems, to the land and animal with food chain, to weather systems all the way up the atmospheric system to the interplanetary system, and so on. There are too many to mention as is obvious. But there is definitely evidence, that by far and above all demonstrates consistency. That now that I'm looking for it, that can be attributed to this intelligent creator. It fits. The absence of a God makes it a tougher to argue that all these planned systems were here by mere coincidence and chance.
Pascal's Wager
Blaise Pascal (from wikipedia.org)
The above arguments' basis is Pascal's Wager. He was a mathematician, philosopher, thinker and he came up with a reasonable assertion that belief is the most reasonable stance.
This is how the wager goes: (The below excerpted from here.)
The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable..."
This is how the wager goes: (The below excerpted from here.)
The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
- God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
- A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
- You must wager (it is not optional).
- Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
- Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
- But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable..."
