If we were not "designed", then what is the catalyst for life?

What plunged us into existance in the first place? And don%26#039;t tell me the big bang please. What catapolted the big bang? If you think about it, does it really make sense to say we weren%26#039;t designed? Does it go with any sort of logic that there is a cause for everything?
If we were not %26quot;designed%26quot;, then what is the catalyst for life?
it makes far more logical sense than to assume some mystical man in the sky, lol.





Assuming you accept most scientific facts of the day, like the age of the universe and life on this planet, there is no other conclusion to draw. Dinosaurs %26quot;ruled%26quot; the earth for like 200 million years, life has been here for almost 1 billion years. There have been 5 major die-offs on this planet, at least one that killed like 95% of all species.





if not for the most recent, about 65 million years ago, mammals would VERY likely be little rodents hiding from the big lizards still. How can u look at that and say that humans, who have been here for at most 6 million years, are the ones it is all designed for? it%26#039;s ridculous.





EDIT: Christian Hegele, logic does NOT require the existence of god by language alone, that is ludicrous. There are numerous objections to it that, to me, are far more convincing:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological...
If we were not %26quot;designed%26quot;, then what is the catalyst for life?
Evolution





It is the Great Sorter of things





Verification? Look around and in you
Reply:Many atheists accept experience and existence as %26quot;brute facts%26quot; and their deeper sources beyond rational explanation. They are what we philosophy types call %26quot;Phenomenologists%26quot;. Therefore, appeal to causation or design arguements for God%26#039;s existence are going to be met with skepticism. To these people, such questions are simply beyond the scope of any prudent application of reason. There is nothing inconsistent in this position.





Other atheists (like Dawkins) are rationalists AND atheists, and I think this position is inconsistent. They say that the universe is accessible to human reason through the exercise of logic; that the universe %26quot;obeys%26quot; the principles of logic, so to speak. However, they also reject the notion that God exists, even though logic informs us God is necessarily existent as much as a square has 4 sides or a married bachelor is impossible (see %26quot;Ontological Argument%26quot; for more info). Thus, their view is untenable, IMHO.





Edit: Hey, %26quot;dude%26quot;.





Well, the existence of God is not so much proved by argument, but it is a self-evident truth .... a %26quot;clear and distinct perception%26quot;, so to speak. Furthermore, it%26#039;s the %26quot;archimedean point%26quot; of my entire epistimology, seeming to me to be even more fundamental and self-evident than Descartes%26#039; cogito. Can you imagine a non-existent God without committing a logical contradiction? Neither can I!





Furthermore, it allows me to escape skepticism and assert my rationalist stance. The universe behaves logically because God is logical, and God created the universe. The corner-stone to every good, Rationalist programme is a belief in God. See Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Malebranche, etc. etc.





How does an Atheist justify his rationalism without appeal to God? That is to say, what reason has he to assume the universe must follow the same rules of logic that govern the mind? As Hume pointed out, why should repeated observations of a certain occurance be taken as any indication that its future occurance is more likely? Isn%26#039;t that just habit? (Problem of Induction)





Without an appeal to God -- an intelligent mind that has ordered the universe according to logic -- believing in %26quot;science%26quot; is either blind faith and prone to skepticism, or else is viewed merely as an inescapable consequence of human psychology (and the view collapses to phenomenolism). Thus, in my opinion, Rationalist Atheism is just as religious and irrational as Evangelist Fundamentalism.





By the way, which objection convinces you the most? Hume is so vague and imprecise, it%26#039;s frustrating. Gaunilo was just plain wrong -- %26quot;perfection%26quot; within a species is a totally different concept than %26quot;maximal perfection%26quot;. Kant%26#039;s is the only half-decent objection, and is easily dispatched with the observation that while %26quot;existence%26quot; in itself might not be a predicate, %26quot;necessary existence%26quot; assuredly is.
Reply:Those who seek dogma will create it where none exists.
Reply:There is a good logic for existence having no cause. The universe is, after all, the material of existence. Without that material there is no %26quot;existence.%26quot; So we are not talking about the creation of planets and gasses and life. We are talking about the fact that existence exists within which those things that we call matter, whether it has life or not, find their place. That place cannot have been created without contradiction.





%26quot;Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is not teleological and anthropocentric, but purposeless...%26quot; http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html





Life requires no supernatural cause. It happened because it happened, as all things in nature have happened and will happen. To believe we were %26quot;created%26quot; is anthropomorphic. That means projecting your own views of what it is to be human onto a %26quot;thing%26quot; which you assume to have the powers of humans--multiplied infinitely.





What if you stopped projecting your image of a being capable of production, of imagination, of creation? For that matter, why do you do it? If existence has existed for eternity, then it could not have been created. And if existence once did not exist, then you contradict the meaning of the word %26quot;existence.%26quot;
Reply:I personally I don%26#039;t believe in the big bang theroy.Explain thought/speech?GOD IS and will always be my CREATOR..Blessings Yahoo