Chance as the God of atheists

[Yrreg]

From stock information I understand that atheists don't accept there is God the maker of everything and Who keeps everything in operation.

So, tell me then, atheists here, to whom or what should be given the credit of everything in existence, or at least in operation, on the assumption which is I understand your position that everything has always been existing (no need of a God maker of everything).



Again from stock information I seem to be justified to say that for you atheists, in place of God, it is chance which if not responsible for everything existing is in charge of everything operating.

You will ask me what I understand by God and by chance.

God for me is the maker and operator of everything.

Chance is a situation where nothing is in any kind of orderly scheme of things, this is just what comes to my mind as I write this post, about what is chance.

In the course of our exchange, I hope we can come to a concurring agreement on what is chance.


Try random mutation as the child of chance, to get what I mean by chance.

Now, you have got to know the theory of evolution of (new)* species of life, to be acquainted with random mutation, and of course also natural selection which your fellow atheists who are keen on evolution keep saying is not subject to chance but to an orderly scheme of things, the order namely of survival of the fittest.

That is some natural law, isn't it, and therefore it is not chance or not chancy.


*I mention new species which is the target of evolution, for atheist scientists have no idea how the very first ever one species or several species came about when there was still no evolution enabling the phenomenon of life to produce species.

Or more correctly to develop into new species, and wherefore for man if he was already around (not possible because he was also the result of evolution which was not yet then in operation) to explain the very ever first appearance of species on earth.

Quite a complicated or complex or intricate issue, if you get my drift.

Anyway, are you aware that proponents of the theory of evolution do not really know how the very ever first species one or several appeared on earth when before them there was or were no species for random mutation to have taken place with them.




Ryrge

[curiosityandthecat]

Fail.

[pinkocommie]

Chance as god - I reject this idea.  Your version of chance didn't create anything in a way that is at all comparable to god so trying to replace one concept with the other is an obvious attempt to pave the way for the tired assertion that atheists somehow worship science or evolution.  Honestly, I don't know why you would diminish your own god by inviting the comparison.  You require the concept of god in order to understand the world around you - that doesn't mean that we require the same thing and, being atheists, are simply 'replacing' god with something else.

You seem stuck on the concept of god as if everyone requires an explanation for why we're here equally, even if that explanation is illogical and unreasonable.  Personally, I'm much more confident and secure admitting that we don't know with any certainty yet how life began on the planet (abiogenisis, NOT evolution, by the way) than taking a 'god gap' stance about things we don't yet know or may never fully understand, arbitrarily inserting an insecure 'god did it' in any given situation where we might not know exactly how something works.

Also, to be clear - evolution deals with how organisms change over generations.  Abiogenesis is the study of how life on earth began.  Evolution deals with already living creatures, abiogenesis deals with life from innate matter.  You can scoff and reject abiogenesis all you want, but that has no effect whatsoever on evolution.  The two theories are entirely different and separate from one another.

[G-Roll]

Anyway, are you aware that proponents of the theory of evolution do not really know how the very ever first species one or several appeared on earth when before them there was or were no species for random mutation to have taken place with them.

Maybe im a pessimist but i don’t think this discussion is going to go very far. Obviously there are unanswered questions in evolution. But there is evidence for it.... lots of evidence.
However no god in the history of gods has ever shown himself to his worshippers. So i suppose both have their faults.
But still one must choose whether to be a theist  or atheist.... Lol tomatoes/tamatoes... ketchup/catchup.  To me i guess its just different explanations of the same thing. I wont lie though i could care less how we got here or what the first species was. And i don’t see chance as a god. Or luck. Nor do i think that random events should be labelled as god. Honestly i cant fathom referring to anything as god.... others here might have a different opinion, but the label of god seems to make things... well... ridiculous imho.

[elliebean]

[McQ]

Try random mutation as the child of chance, to get what I mean by chance.

Now, you have got to know the theory of evolution of (new)* species of life, to be acquainted with random mutation, and of course also natural selection which your fellow atheists who are keen on evolution keep saying is not subject to chance but to an orderly scheme of things, the order namely of survival of the fittest.


Ryrge

Yrreg, before you dive into this subject, read up some more for yourself on what evolution is and isn't, and what evolutionary biologists have to say about it. The authorities on evolutionary theory are often atheists, but that is not always so. Some are theists, or even deists. Some are agnostic.

Atheist is not the defining characteristic of those who teach evolutionary theory, and additionally, not all atheists may know the science required to understand evolutionary theory. So for you to keep phrasing all of you statements in broad terms such as, "Your fellow atheists" etc., is just wrong. I propose you start over, lose the ridiculous attitude you are exhibiting, and try to ask sensible questions.

On to the statement of yours that I quoted and highlighted in bold, above:

Who told you that evolution by means of natural selection was the only factor in evolution? Who told you any of it was orderly, or directional? Try reading this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

Before you make another straw man argument, try using the gigantic resource sitting in front of you, glowing at you, begging to be searched and studied.

[Albino_Raptor]

You know, I have only been here for three days.
But I can already tell that you suffer from a severe case of CWOTS - Christian Wall of Text syndrom.
I am afraid your attempt to blahblah anyone here into a condition of  is readily averted with ye goode ole saying of "tl;dr."

I, on the other hand, will cut it short: We have something in common. You and me both know jack shit about the absolute fact of how life came to be in a manner that can be proven without a glimmer of remaining doubt. The difference is that I am not that terrified by my own ignorance that I give it a name, build it a temple and start worshipping it. Considering the size of the universe I find that behaviour amusingly egocentric, quite arrogant, and remarkably naive.

[Will]

So, tell me then, atheists here, to whom or what should be given the credit of everything in existence, or at least in operation, on the assumption which is I understand your position that everything has always been existing (no need of a God maker of everything).

There doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that natural phenomena have a supernatural cause or agent, therefore there's nothing to credit or blame for natural phenomena. I suppose you could "credit" the natural laws of the universe, but that would seem to be a reification fallacy.

Again from stock information I seem to be justified to say that for you atheists, in place of God, it is chance which if not responsible for everything existing is in charge of everything operating.

No, I'm afraid that's incorrect. Chance is not capable of creation, operation or destruction, therefore the concept cannot be credited with such things. I think you may be committing a reification fallacy.

For reference, a reification fallacy is committed when an abstraction (chance, in this case) is treated as if it were more than an abstraction (something which can be given credit). Chance, in and of itself, is simply an idea. While one can treat chance as more than an abstract in metaphor, you seem to be treating it as such in a literal sense. In other words, you're treating chance as if it were more than just conceptual.

I hope this has been helpful.

[Dretlin]

Hey Ryrge,

Firstly, Evolution is not attempting to explain the origin of life - it explains (rather well) how life chances over time. I see not point on even discussing, roughly, half your post as that falsehood is throughout it.

And secondly - chance, is not a supernatural being, or has it had countless dogma written about it, neither does anyone who recognizes chance meet up every Sunday to discuss how much chance loves them, nor do we wonder why chance always suffering.

There is no "in place of god" as god has never been there in the first place. Also it was odd you seem to think Evolution and Atheism go hand in hand - as they do not.

[Dretlin]

Fail.

I have nothing further to add, I just wanted to quote this.

[Whitney]

topic temporarily (?) locked.  Will be unlocked if yrreg decides to play nice.