When the idea of the existence of beings (humans) in a void of chance, or as a result of chance is mooted by the atheist, i am dumbfounded by the bizzare absence of basic recognitions inherent therein.

This is because the best postulations till date concerning the reasons for a need for anything to develop into its current form centres around a need; i:e: a need for survival, or self defence. . .these needs of course form the core plank for natural selection, as the need for survival, for example, will lead to the development of features suited to survival and the extinction of species unable to develop such features as against the flourishing of species able to develop the needed features.

In all lines of reasoning therefore, development tends to centre around a requirement or a function.

    Thus I in terms of cosmological reasoning i ask:

     1. Did the singularity (or whatever one may term the pre-big-bang state) need an expansion? Why could it not remain a singularity - as it may well have been for all eternity in the past?

    2. Did the resultant Universe need living organisms? If it did not need them, why did living organisms develop?

    3. Did the Earth need [/b]mankind?

Scientific thoughts progress around the idea of development by necessity or requirement [b]to suit a function (E.g: a creature develops sharp teeth for the function of killing prey, or bright colors for the function of attracting a mate).

What function did nature require mankind for, such that it produced mankind?

Does Nature produce ANYTHING that it does not need?

Are there reasonless voids or gaps in nature?

The idea of a reasonless intelligent being such as man is the most splendid contradiction the atheist can be saddled with.

Is the very existence of intelligence consistent with purposelessness?

Hey Deep Sight:

Happy New Year to you and yours.

I am not exactly sure what one means by "reasonless" intelligence. Is the term "reasonless intelligence" to be understood as "purposeless intelligence"-- or rather the oxymoron "unreasoning/thoughtless/irrational intelligence"?

Thanks.

Thanks Prizm.

By reasonless intelligence i actually mean intelligence that exists without a reason i:e - a purpose within the universe.

What is the purpose of man within nature or within the universe?

I doubt very strongly that nature produces ANYTHING that it does not need.

Common observation has informed the age-old maxim that nature abhors a vacuum.

Why would nature "produce" man, with all his intelligence, if he serves no exact purpose therein.

The reality is that nature would not do such a thing - it has not been shown to work in this way.