When I said chance I was referring to something else entirely - this entire notion of chance lacking an agency is nonsense and a misrepresentation of what I was arguing.
Really! What is the agency?
I am clear that we do not know what caused the universe, and you would have to present actual evidence to support the fact that one created the universe. On top of that, before you could even do that, you would have to present evidence that god existed. They are two separate claims, and both must be evidenced.
Everything points to a reasoning being. The anthropic principle or fine-tuning by chaotic chance happenstance is ludicrous. It makes no sense that anything would be sustainable from nonreasoning chance happenings and it does not pan out in the experiential test. You propose dice that roll themselves without agency, and the number is a constant six, millions and millions of rolls. First, such dice would have to be fixed to remain constant.
Next, in everything we investigate, we find reasons for why things do the things they do. Reasoning beings find reasons. This universe conveys information. We can intelligently deduce a pattern and information from the pattern. There are consistency and uniformity in nature. Why? From the micros to the macros, we see complexity in the things that are. We understand the symbiotic relationship between parts for the thing to operate. One does not work without the other. They are mutually dependent. Take either one away, and the other is not possible.
I never said, chance created the universe, my point there was that it is more likely for life to be present because of chance than it is to claim a super natural god created the universe which supports life.
No, it is not more likely. It is less likely, impossible. The possibility alone is incomprehensible. Explain how it is more likely then. You are making a lot of assertions. Back them up with reason and evidence.
There are only a few options, 1) God/gods, 2) Chance happenstance, 3) It is all illusion, of which the latter is not reasonable. Can you think of others?
Next onward, how is it an assumption to think agency is not required to create the universe? We have an example of a non-agent (the big bang) creating the universe, there is no evidence at all that there needed to be an agent to start the big bang.
Again, your supposition is loaded with personification. You can't but describe it with human attributes such as agency. What is 'agency?'
"Action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect."
What caused the Big Bang? A thing that begins to exist cannot cause itself. That (self-creation) is a contradiction of terms.
Again, the universe we can observe was literally caused by happenstance,
Massive and biased assumption.
that the big bang expanded the way it did and such, that is literally our only example of a universe, that IS MY PROOF, that the universe is here and the aspects of it now were caused by happenstance. You haven't even demonstrated a god.
I constantly have, but you do not hear my explanation. You continually fall back on your default position; God is not possible or likely. I can purposely show how one view is reasonable, and the other is not. That is, we find reasons for the way things are. There are purposes for things. We are purposeful creatures. There are unity and diversity in the universe. Out of the one, the many. There is an order to things. There are laws of nature that we discover. We do not invent these laws. We discover them. They operate, and we can express them in concise mathematical formulas. Purpose, laws, order, and reasons require minds to think of them. Thus we seem to be discovering reason from a Mind.
Neither you nor I nor any other human being was around to witness what happened. Thus we build our models on starting propositions - God or chance. Depending on the evidence, one model seems more reasonable than another. What you assume is that God is not the reason for the Big Bang, if that indeed is the is a correct surmise from what is available to us. All evidence needs interpretation. Data does not come with the description "made 13.8 billion years ago out of nothing." So the models come from testing hypotheses. The more it corresponds to the data, the more we find such theorizing reasonable. Scientifically speaking, we can't repeat the origin. Thus the models are used to speculate on what happened.
This is the one I really want to break down because it is the most abhorent:
Now, as for the evidence of God, everything that has been made "speaks" of the existence of such a Being as reasonable, from the micros to the macros, from the simplicity to the complexity, from the apparent design and information in this, from the anthropic principle to the claimed self-revelation - the Bible. On the Bible, there is much reasonable evidence, and I would defy you to show that prophecy is not more reasonable than denying it.
Micros and macros don't prove anything inherently, logic is a presumed axiom to the point that one cannot point out logic as unreasonable without logic, therefore it is systematically and axiomatically true.
Logic is a self-evident truth. You can't deny it without using it. Yes, it requires reasoning being.
You are making a flaw there whenever you suggest that because something is complex is requires a creator, it obviously doesn't if you agree with the big bang.
I am saying that God is a more reasonable proposition. Show me otherwise.
Within the macros and micros, there is extreme diversity and complexity and order and patterns. Things consistently operate sustainably. Why would or should it happen by chance happenstance. Again, no reason. Yet we explain it with reason. How does chaos equal sustainability (conformity of nature) or likelihood?
"Apparent" Not actual design, as you know most of the vastness of space would be fatal for us.
Which supports the anthropic principle that the earth is designed with us in mind.
The bible? Provide evidence of it's veracity, as any historian would have to do with a document. Prophecy is based on the assumption of the divine and supernatural, where anything that breaks the laws of physics are definitionally physically impossible.
Prophecy provides evidence that what was said over and over again came about, as said. The OT system of worship was prophesied to end, and a new system begins with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple therein. The Messiah was prophesied to come to these people living under THAT covenant that does not exist after AD 70. Hundreds of specific prophecies applied to Jesus can apply to no other person. The evidence that the OT was written before the NT is well verified and most reasonable, more so than written after the fact. Countless prophecies are specific to the people of that old covenant that can be shown to come about.
Please show me what chance can do, not what you assume of it. First of all, what is it? What kind of ability does it have? How does chance sustain anything, let alone the uniformity of nature (nature's laws)?
This was simply a mistyping on my part, and I have already explained it.
Literally, all of your positions are based on the assumption that god created the universe.
And all of yours is based on the ASSUMPTION that He did not. The question is, what is more reasonable?
I'm sure there are better people to discuss this with, but I'll still address it.
The escape clause!!!
As for agency? The default position is there being no agency, because of the lack of evidence towards one, and then one would have to demonstrate an agency, but you kind of repeat yourself a few times. Why is that? Whenever you don't have a faulty understanding of science and copy and paste misattributions or straw men, your words have a lot less merit than you make them seem
Excuses, excuses!!! More assumptions and charges without evidence!!! No agency, nothing to act on the Big Bang. Poof, it just comes into being from nothing. It is absurd. Rather than admit God is the more reasonable explanation, you will go to any extent to deny Him.
Romans 1:18-25 (NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
