Who's afraid of a godless universe?

Because that would involve us believing that a random assortment of chemical accidents resulted in a creature that is able to decide that they are a random assortment of chemical accidents. Could the random assortment of chemical accidents called Schraf explain why her conclusion shouldn't be taken with a pinch of another random assortment of chemical accidents (salt)God appears to be a better option. It is a rational option at least.This message has been edited by iano, 20-Feb-2006 01:14 PM

Invoking personal incredulity: the fallacy when no personal incredulity is involved is a fallacious application of the fallacy. I'm not saying it is unbelievable, I'm asking on what basis one might suppose it happened so. The RC church when asked on what basis they say the Bible is the infallible word of God reply "because we say so" "What gives you the authority to say so?" we ask back. To which the reply "Because the Bible says we have that authority".The same bootstrap argument is used here. "I'm and accident and by accident I happen to know I am an accident" requires a little more that than invoking "personal incredulity fallacy" to defend itself.By what mechanism does one step outside the accidental loop to comment in any objective way on the proceedings. To me, it seems a philosophy that shoots itself in the foot right away

The chemicals that happened to be lying around got together in which ever way they must (if not randomly) have gotten together and so produced all we see today. Whatever happened to be lying around was I take it the product of random chance. If not they had a reason to be in the concentrations and locations they were. And the reason they happened to be that way and react that way....And so it goes back to...what precisely? The bootstrap argument doesn't work whereever you decide to push it back to. Its a bootstrap argument until some solid ground is reached from which to pull itself upwards. You have as little as myself except kicking the ball into first cause touch. If I sail upon the good ship myth CP, there is one who rows with as much effort beside me. None other than your good self...you random bunch of accidental chemical reactions you.Now if only you would row in the right direction...

The reason "why not?" is that the only answer seemingly available (if poorly expressed - you can pick at the details but we'll only end up back at first cause mysteries) would lead you into an argument that has to pull itself up by its bootstraps. I'm not saying it is not possible but that the thinking generally is that bootstrap arguments are not valid defences against any "why not?". I was asking thus, is there a way to break out and release yourself from invalid argument.

For it to be possible however, it must be possible that an argument can pull itself up by its own bootstraps. I'm not saying that that is impossible but just that it kind of makes nonsense of any discussion about things if we accept that bootstrap arguments should be admitted into the realm of possible?You didn't strike me as someone content to reside in the realm of "absolutely anything at all is possible".

True The logic doesn't follow from the premise Fair enough Worry is probably futile but if it is possible that a person can have an inside knowledge about God which exceeds you own then it might be wise to check it out. How one does this is another question Not necessarily especially if the Fall occurred and it was a function of mans action TrueP.S. if I was going hunting it would your party I'd want to be in

Any idea if there is common consensus as to what the probablility is of the life we have in our universe in the state we find it. And the probability of there being other universes?Welcome to EvC. Did AdminAsgara warn you of its intellectual cocaine traits. If not then run John Ferguson...run.Unless of course your a Christian apologist in which case there is all the more reason to stay.This message has been edited by iano, 25-Feb-2006 12:31 AMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-25-2006 01:05 AM