> So you assert that the natural laws of the universe organized themselves out of an infinite
number of random variables to provide order and structure to the universe.
What makes you think that the setup we have is the *only* one that can lead to order? Yours is a position based on faith, without reason to back it up.
> If they have always existed, then time does not exist, because time has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Another unreasonable position. Nobody knows whether or not time has a beginning or end. And while it may have had a beginning, there's no reason to assume it will have an end. And without an end, there can be no "middle."
> No scientist has seriously proposed a workable model of an alternate universe based on very different math and physics with sound theoretical principals.
You *really* need to research these things prior to making such flat statements. You are, in fact, quite wrong.
The rest of your post contained the same sort of philosophizing. All very pretty, and with essentially meaningless quotes from supposedly reputable scientific sources... but in the end.... positions of pure faith not based on science or fact.
Oh, BTW: Your "watch" analogy was amazingly amusing in it's lack of appropriateness.
> So you assert that the natural laws of the universe organized themselves out of an infinite
number of random variables to provide order and structure to the universe.What makes you think that the setup we have is the *only* one that can lead to order? Yours is a position based on faith, without reason to back it up.
Sorry, that's non sequitur. I merely restated your position in an effort to point out that it is not logical to assume that the natural laws of the universe organized themselves out of an infinite number of random variables to provide order and structure to the universe PRIOR to the existence of any such laws. Science is based on cause and effect. An 'event' can not occur by random chance if there are no governing laws of the universe to produce the effect. I have given my reasons and logic for my conclusions, based on scientific and observable facts as well as common sense, but you have not. It appears that your conclusions are more faith based (atheistic) than mine (Christian). If you believe that my reasoning or logic is in error, then please point out the error and provide what you believe to be correct.
> If they have always existed, then time does not exist, because time has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Another unreasonable position. Nobody knows whether or not time has a beginning or end. And while it may have had a beginning, there's no reason to assume it will have an end. And without an end, there can be no "middle."
Time has been defined as a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. This implies a beginning, a middle, and an end. The 'Big Bang Theory' (a well known scientific theory) posits that the Universe began from nothing and exploded into being, thus the 'beginning', and that it will eventually collapse back into nothingness, thus the end. I will concede that if the 'Big Bang Theory' is proved wrong, then time may be infinite with no beginning or end.
> No scientist has seriously proposed a workable model of an alternate universe based on very different math and physics with sound theoretical principals.
You *really* need to research these things prior to making such flat statements. You are, in fact, quite wrong.
Please cite your sources and authorities for any scientist who has developed a very different math and physics with sound theoretical principals leading to a workable model of an alternate universe. I can find none. However, there are some scientists, (using the known math and physics of this universe), that support 'string theory' which predicts the possibility of alternate universes. Yet, none have posited that any alternate universe could organize itself without some kind of its own universal laws, rules or truths by random chance. Which brings us back to the question: Who created the universal laws? For them to produce themselves and spring into being is beyond reason and defies cause and effect.
The rest of your post contained the same sort of philosophizing. All very pretty, and with essentially meaningless quotes from supposedly reputable scientific sources... but in the end.... positions of pure faith not based on science or fact.
I indicated in my post which portions of what you call "The rest of your post" was opinion. Do you have a problem with others having an opinion different from your own? As for "the same sort of philosophizing" I remind you that I have given my reasons and logic for my conclusions, based on scientific and observable facts as well as common sense, but you have not. I point out that your supposed examples will not work without the natural laws of the universe and that when those are applied, the examples are chaotic systems, not Absolute Chaos itself. So where are your examples of Absolute Chaos becoming well ordered and structured? It appears that your (atheistic) conclusions are more faith based than mine. If you believe that my reasoning or logic is in error, then please point out the error and provide what you believe to be correct. My supposedly reputable scientific resources: Allan Sandage Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer (among others, where are yours?)
Oh, BTW: Your "watch" analogy was amazingly amusing in it's lack of appropriateness.
And exactly how is it inappropriate? Using Random Chance, the watch has the same probability of organizing itself as the Universe. Exactly what do you posit that alters that probability? My point is that to assume that the universe, by Random Chance, can create it's own laws and then use those laws to spring into being is as ridiculous as assuming that the watch can do the same.
Perhaps a better example would be one of the aircraft that, as an engineer, you help design. Where is the evidence that Random Chance had resulted in such an aircraft? With eons and infinite variables, why has an aircraft not suddenly sprung into being? Why must it have been the object of an intelligent design? Why not just throw the raw materials into a hopper and let Random Chance produce it? (If Random Chance could result in such an aircraft, then there would be no need for engineers, would there? ;^D )
I'm not trying to be flippant. I just don't grasp your basis for positing Random Chance as having created the Universe. I do not accept that the Universe was an accident because there is no cause and effect to that hypothesis. Reason dictates that before the laws of the universe came into being, Random Chance could not be a force (or exist as a possibility), because it is a part and parcel of a structured universe. Every 'event' can be traced to a cause and effect (no matter how random), if investigated thoroughly. Random Chance is simply not possible without cause and effect. If that were not so, then science could not develop theories nor explain anything.
Just consider how complex the human body is. Our bones aren't just pvc pipe, or our blood colored water. Take away one system and you cease to live.
But why debate, just realize that all of us are mortal. All religions are formed to try to satify the deep down need to "survive" after death. I only know of one that can. When a person earnestly seeks after God, he leads them to someone that can explain salvation to that soul. It happened to me, it can happen to you. I made fun of people "speaking in tougues", until it happened to me. Obey Acts 2:38, you won't be sorry.
I’m a Christian, and I believe in God, but I am able to see the folly of trying to prove God’s existence using mere logical tools. I remember the deceased Christian apologist, Dr. Walter Martin, referring to this topic during a lecture at a Christian college. Dr. Martin said that all an agnostic has to say is, “The universe is.” That’s it. That’s the only fact. Any statement about the universe origin is just speculation. To say that this universe cannot come into existence unless some giant intelligent force intervened is pure speculation.
As you suggested, if we were godlike and had the ability to look at 100 universes since their inceptions, then we can make logical inferences and empirical theories. If 90 universes were devoid of life and 10 universes were full of life, we could collect data and analyze it. If in the 90 lifeless universes there has been no intervention from an outside intelligent force, while in the 10 full-of-life universes there has been intervention from gods, then a good case could be made that life existence requires gods.
The reason we tend to assume that a found watch in a desert was created by a human is obvious; we already have seen watches and watchmakers. Otherwise, we would be speculating.
When I share the gospel with an atheist, I don't get bogged down in these silly arguments. I just pray, share God's Word in a reasonable and polite manner, and let the Holy Spirit do its work.