> 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.
> 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.
Again... what is this "order and structure" of which you speak?
> An 'event' can not occur by random chance if there are no governing laws of the universe to produce the effect.
Why not? Because you say so? Explain why if there are no set laws, why set laws cannot congeal out of chaos.
> 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.
Sigh... no, it doesn't. The existence of "past" does NOT imply "beginning." And the existence of a "beginning" does NOT imply an "end." Hell, son, take Christian theology and yer own highly hypothetical soul: it supposedly had a beginning, but will (so goes the bedtiem story) have no 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.
EERRRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. The BB theory posits a beginning... but says that the "end" may or *may* *not* exist. Research the "Hubble Constant." At one point, cosmologists were really hoping that there was enough mass in theuniverse so that universal expansion woudl eventually grind to a halt and collapse back into a "Big Crunch," and everythign woudl start all over.However, careful astronomical observations have indicated that the universe is expanding faster than "hoped," and current thinking generally is that universal expansion will continue *forever.* The universe, in this view, will eventually become an intensely dark and cold thin haze of sub-elementary particles, witheventually the most complex structures bound together being elements of "positronium"... an electron and a positron orbitting each other at distances of lightyears.
There's nothign in the BB theory to suggest that time necessarily has an "end."
> I will concede that if the 'Big Bang Theory' is proved wrong, then time may be infinite with no beginning or end.
Time can be infinite with a definite beginning but no end. Consider the list of positive integers. Startsat zero, goes to infinity. Thereis a beginning, but no end, and thus no middle.
As for alternatives to the BB theory... about all I can point you to is Brane theory. Google it and enjoy.
> Who created the universal laws? For them to produce themselves and spring into being is beyond reason and defies cause and effect.
Certainyl far less so than the idea of a "Creator" that somehow sprang into being. If you are willign to accept the notion of an eternal Creator, then you should be as willign to accept the possibility of an eternal universe without beginning or end.
> So where are your examples of Absolute Chaos becoming well ordered and structured?
Look out the window.