Blind Chance

Blind Chance

Because the designer of this contraption does not appear in the video. I therefore do not believe there was a designer. A s designer is just a figment of our imaginations, because we have the mistaken sense that there needs to be designer. Perhaps it is due to problems we had with our father’s not playing enough lego with us as children. I therefore assume that this lego “machine” exists because of the random collation of lego bricks. After all given enough time any possible configuration of lego bricks is possible.

Some internet wag has put it this way:

Atheism the belief there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits that turned itself into dinosaurs… makes perfect sense.



4 thoughts on “Blind Chance

  1. Roger Wright says:

    Of course.
    It’s the logical answer that defeats an illogical premise.

    When scientists start off with an a priori position of materialism – ‘there can be no God’ – they get themselves caught up in the most awful logical idiocies.
    Scientists should not start off with an a priori position of ‘there is a God’ either.

    In fact, scientists should not seek to include or exclude God at all; God is spirit, not science. We are seekers, and are amazingly well placed to seek out the secrets of the universe, and scientists should concentrate on that, not on abstract notions of No God.

    If I cannot see a writer in a book, or see an artist in their art, then they are not real writers or artists; I see the One in the nature of physicality, and am persuaded that such physicality cannot be a random happening caused by random happenings. This stretches credibility far beyond breaking point, and mocks the lack of independent thought in materialistic science.


    Good blogpiece. 🙂

  2. Don’t get me wrong the video is awesome, but this is just a classic straw-man representation of what those we disagree with present. How can we expect to be taken seriously when we present such simplistic misrepresentation’s of peoples views?

    Obviously both groups would agree that often times things that give the appearance of design are actually designed, no-one would dispute that. However that is not to say that every complex thing that gives the appearance of design is necessarily so. Especially when taking into account the implications of time and a number of other important factors.

    As a Christian I do believe an inference can be made but we must be careful to present it in a way that does justice to what our critics are actually saying.

  3. Jon Rogers says:

    Since I know that sarcasm is not one of your key evangelistic tools and that mocking in apologetics is ugly whether it’s ‘one of us’ or someone like Dawkins, I can only assume that this post is designed to score some points with other Christians.
    I feel that this is a bit of a straw man argument and that the tone isn’t quite right – sorry Krish, I don’t think that the post is a masterpiece, though the lego is pretty cool!

    1. krishkandiah says:

      Fair enough mate, probably been reading too much Spufford recently and was trying on his apologetic style. glad you liked the Lego.

Add Your Comment: