Things that exist have properties. It's how we know a thing exists in the first place. The universe is more than just empty space, it exists, it has properties. A lot of what you're talking about is concepts created by man to understand the properties of the universe that appear to be "balance" to you.
One good example, is E=MC^2 has been debated for quite a while now and has recently been challenged with verifiable evidence. One of the foundation equations of physics has been proven that it is not true for all situations.
And any symmetry in the equations that we came up with is simply our attempt to try to understand how our universe works to help better our own standards of living within the universe. Every equation we have made thus far is simply what we use to answer things until a new equation fits a situation better. Any seen symmetry is only temporary since our universe is constantly changing and we are constantly learning new things to explain how our universe operates.
I'm going to agree with Gnomefro on this one with why isn't it a possibility that nature just came to exist as it is without any sort of creator? Why does something even as grandeur as the universe need to have a creator to come up with it? The big bang happened and how things are now is how it just happened to settle itself out of the infinite possibilities that could have come out.
You are also making a massive leap from "things appear constant" to "God exists and made them constant". It's absurd to rule out that nature can simply exist the way it is when we have no evidence of anything else and don't even know if it is possible to "create" it.
In a word - no. Logic itself is merely a formalization of the concept of existence. Consequently, there is no such thing as a completely chaotic universe. And frankly, naturalists have a lot less to explain than theists do, because intelligence is a phenomenon requiring orders of magnitude more order - and theists simply state that it can exist in an über form and call it "God". Given that they should have no problem accepting the simpler naturalistic claim as more plausible.
i think the atheist answer to how do we justify a symmetrical universe is we don't know,, and if you ask a believer he will say Intelligent Design (Creator), then the atheist will ask how do you justify the Creator .. the believer answer will be we don't know. in the end scientifically we just don't know,, do you think Intelligent Design could be accepted as a scientific theory ?
Not all atheists consider this universe to be random. Personally, I think the concept of randomness is an unwillingness of humanity to admit that we have no freakin' clue how something works.
It seems to me that the most complex of chemical equations to the simplest logical law of self-identity result from the Law of Conservation of Energy. Without this law, randomness would be feasible. This law also removes any need to assume there is a beginning.
Things that exist have properties. It's how we know a thing exists in the first place. The universe is more than just empty space, it exists, it has properties. A lot of what you're talking about is concepts created by man to understand the properties of the universe that appear to be "balance" to you.
DarkEmergence 4 months ago
One good example, is E=MC^2 has been debated for quite a while now and has recently been challenged with verifiable evidence. One of the foundation equations of physics has been proven that it is not true for all situations.
DukeJCDC 4 months ago
And any symmetry in the equations that we came up with is simply our attempt to try to understand how our universe works to help better our own standards of living within the universe. Every equation we have made thus far is simply what we use to answer things until a new equation fits a situation better. Any seen symmetry is only temporary since our universe is constantly changing and we are constantly learning new things to explain how our universe operates.
DukeJCDC 4 months ago
I'm going to agree with Gnomefro on this one with why isn't it a possibility that nature just came to exist as it is without any sort of creator? Why does something even as grandeur as the universe need to have a creator to come up with it? The big bang happened and how things are now is how it just happened to settle itself out of the infinite possibilities that could have come out.
DukeJCDC 4 months ago
You are also making a massive leap from "things appear constant" to "God exists and made them constant". It's absurd to rule out that nature can simply exist the way it is when we have no evidence of anything else and don't even know if it is possible to "create" it.
Gnomefro 4 months ago
In a word - no. Logic itself is merely a formalization of the concept of existence. Consequently, there is no such thing as a completely chaotic universe. And frankly, naturalists have a lot less to explain than theists do, because intelligence is a phenomenon requiring orders of magnitude more order - and theists simply state that it can exist in an über form and call it "God". Given that they should have no problem accepting the simpler naturalistic claim as more plausible.
Gnomefro 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think the atheist answer to how do we justify a symmetrical universe is we don't know,, and if you ask a believer he will say Intelligent Design (Creator), then the atheist will ask how do you justify the Creator .. the believer answer will be we don't know. in the end scientifically we just don't know,, do you think Intelligent Design could be accepted as a scientific theory ?
groznyentertainment 4 months ago
Comment removed
groznyentertainment 4 months ago
Not all atheists consider this universe to be random. Personally, I think the concept of randomness is an unwillingness of humanity to admit that we have no freakin' clue how something works.
It seems to me that the most complex of chemical equations to the simplest logical law of self-identity result from the Law of Conservation of Energy. Without this law, randomness would be feasible. This law also removes any need to assume there is a beginning.
Existence doesn't have to be creation.
robtbo 4 months ago