The definition and value of science

[The Barbarian]

For life to start the minimum cell had to be very simple to have any chance of being possible in random chance terms.
even supposing that happened

As you learned, chemistry is not random. The universe is organized to produce life in the right circumstances.

Sure amino acids are needed. They are not life. Computers use copper.

It's just one more bit of evidence showing that God was right about the Earth bringing forth life.

So your argument is a straw man.

Perhaps you don't know what "straw man argument" means. What do you think it means?

For life to start the minimum cell had to be very simple to have any chance of being possible in random chance terms.
even supposing that happened

The key is that it had to be separated in some way from the environment and able to self-replicate.

Self-replicating, enzyme-free chemical systems​

Self-replicating, enzyme-free chemical systems - Big Chemical Encyclopedia

chempedia.info

It seems wrong to argue that humans can find them, but God couldn't.

The second necessity is for a way to separate the system from the environment, but just enough to conserve the process without isolating it from water and necessary chemical inputs. It's notable that this required organelle is the simplest organelle in cellular life. A small, self-organizing membrane of simple phospholipids that spontaneously forms vesicles.

if the ongoing evolution to our minimum known cell happened where are the intermediates. Why are the intermediate processes not ongoing?

These processes only work in sterile environments. Today, bacterial rapidly utilize these chemicals for their own needs. But that wouldn't be a problem before there were living things

if It can all happen unguided why are teams of phds needed to guide experiments that still fail to explain any of it?

See above. There's a lot more in the literature. Want to see more?

The journey to present cells from an irreducibly complex first cell is just as big a problem as the unlikelihood of the first minimum life.

Name a step that you think couldn't have happened after early cellular life. What do you have?

There is literally nothing but conjecture.

There is all that research information. Want to see more?

For deniers, there is literally nothing but denial. Most of it is creationist wishful thinking.

It had to be unguided random abiogenesis because there is no other possibility like God.

Being a Christian, I disagree with you. God clearly made the universe to do as He intended.

atheism is a faith.

Have some faith in God. He's a lot smarter and a lot more capable than you seem to think He is.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to deliberately misread Genesis to fit it into your own worldview. Try reading it as it is with no preconceptions. God creates by a sequence of special actions.

We call it nature. He made the earth to bring forth life. Why is it so hard to accept that an omnipotent God would be capable of such a wonder. Yes, we can't conceive it. This is why pagan suppose smaller gods running around, making a tree here and a rabbit there. The Creator is much more powerful and wise.

There is a sufficient variety of conditions on this planet to support different kinds of emergence from the primeval soup but the fact is that commonalities exist within the DNA of all life indicating a singular source.

Which means either that there is only one feasible way for life to emerge in His creation, or that only one particular form of life survived and filled the earth. This is so obvious that I'm surprised you don't see it.

This is inexplicable if you believe in a naturalistic model of abiogenesis.

See above. How could you miss these possibilities?

It is interesting that the theory of common ancestry is itself a refutation of the naturalistic assumption that underlies it.

Lots of errors to unpack in that one. You still can't seem to get your head around the fact that common ancestry does not require any particular way that life first emerged. Darwin thought that God just created the first living things. But if the earth just produced life (as God mentions in Genesis) according to His will, evolution would work exactly as it does now. And as you now see, there are at least two obvious explanations for a single kind surviving to our times.

Defective genes may be misunderstood or the result of mutations since creation.

Our vitamin c gene, which is broken and does nothing at all, is an example that disproves your assumption. It shows our descent from primates who first had the mutation. And it sorts out in primates showing common descent, just as those inactivated viruses that are now part of our genome. Those are also show common descent with other primates. Incidentally there are other animals with a broken vitamin C gene. But it's broken differently than it is in primates, again showing common descent in primates.

Microevolutionary changes are observable but not the grand theoretical framework of macroevolution which is speculation.

Perhaps you don't know what "microevolution" means in biology. What do you think it means? As you have seen, observed speciations negate your assumption, as do things like endogenous retroviruses and broken genes.

 

[The Barbarian]

To talk about an event 13 billion years ago as if your theory predicts it is plainly not true as you did not predict it before it happened.

You're still confused about the way theories are validated. If a theory predicts something unknown, and that prediction later is shown to be true (such as the existence of the cosmic microwave background) such verified predictions indicate the the theory is correct. Hence, Huxley's prediction, made over a hundred years ago based on crocodile ear anatomy, that birds were descended from dinosaurs has been confirmed by a huge number of transitional forms, the realization that birds have very few characteristics not found in dinosaurs, and by biochemical evidence from organic molecules found in dinosaur fossils.

You surely understand this, do you not? How could you not understand it? If your apparent misconception about the nature of prediction were true, we could not do geology, paleontology, fire investigation, etc.

It's true that theories become refined and corrected over time. Even Darwin's theory, although his four points of descent with modification remain solidly demonstrated, has been modified several times. And given that the big bang has only three main discoveries confirming it, there will surely be modifications of it in the future as we learn more about it.

It's even possible that any scientific theory might be overturned someday as new evidence is found. In science we only have statisitical confidence in our findings. That's how induction works.

But it works very well, doesn't it?

 

[Sheila Davis]

Where? Chapter and verse, please.

God says let there be, or let the land produce... That is very different from just starting the creation event and watching a simple emergence according to the preset laws he has established. He creates with a word and there is a specific sequence of actions in the creation account.

King James Version
Genesis 1:20 and God said, *let the waters bring forth abundantly* the moving creatures that hath life.....
1:21 .... And God created the great whales, and every living creature that moved, **which the waters brought forth abundantly,** after their kind....
1:24 and God said **let the Earth bring forth** the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beast of the earth after his kind and **it was so**

Man was the only one that God did not tell the Earth to bring forth - God formed man and created a garden in the East of Eden and placed man in it - Genesis 2:7-8.
1:11 and God said, let the Earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind.....
1:12
And the **Earth brought forth grass and Herb** yielding seeds after his kind.....

We just both have different interpretations.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - King James Version

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sure amino acids are needed. They are not life. Computers use copper. The existence of copper does Not prove Computers self designed ot even exist. So your argument is a straw man.

Read my last post and answer the real questions.

For life to start the minimum cell had to be very simple to have any chance of being possible in random chance terms.
even supposing that happened
( nobody can say when where or how and it is staggeringly unlikely, the more complex the more unlikely)
there is a massive gulf between that and our minimum known cells which are chemical production lines of hundreds or thousands of proteins with a genome controlling including many bases.

If abiogenesis is likely enough to happen what stopped it?
if the ongoing evolution to our minimum known cell happened where are the intermediates. Why are the intermediate processes not ongoing?
if It can all happen unguided why are teams of phds needed to guide experiments that still fail to explain any of it?

abiogenetecists not only need to invent a fanciful idea on how it all came to be with no evidence,
they need an equally fanciful conjecture to say why life creation stopped.

The journey to present cells from an irreducibly complex first cell is just as big a problem as the unlikelihood of the first minimum life.

There is literally nothing but conjecture.
most of it is atheist wishful thinking.
It had to be unguided random abiogenesis because there is no other possibility like God.
atheism is a faith.

As you learned, chemistry is not random. The universe is organized to produce life in the right circumstances.


It's just one more bit of evidence showing that God was right about the Earth bringing forth life.


Perhaps you don't know what "straw man argument" means. What do you think it means?


The key is that it had to be separated in some way from the environment and able to self-replicate.

Self-replicating, enzyme-free chemical systems​

Self-replicating, enzyme-free chemical systems - Big Chemical Encyclopedia

chempedia.info

It seems wrong to argue that humans can find them, but God couldn't.

The second necessity is for a way to separate the system from the environment, but just enough to conserve the process without isolating it from water and necessary chemical inputs. It's notable that this required organelle is the simplest organelle in cellular life. A small, self-organizing membrane of simple phospholipids that spontaneously forms vesicles.


These processes only work in sterile environments. Today, bacterial rapidly utilize these chemicals for their own needs. But that wouldn't be a problem before there were living things


See above. There's a lot more in the literature. Want to see more?

Name a step that you think couldn't have happened after early cellular life. What do you have?


There is all that research information. Want to see more?

For deniers, there is literally nothing but denial. Most of it is creationist wishful thinking.


Being a Christian, I disagree with you. God clearly made the universe to do as He intended.



Have some faith in God. He's a lot smarter and a lot more capable than you seem to think He is.

In the interest of cutting down on some of the noise/ talking past each other/ etc it would be helpful if those speaking, and/or the scientists they reference, would stop speaking in terms of causation by randomness and chance. There is no such thing. If they mean it only as a figure of speech, a substitute for "I don't know", then it should be understood that way —eg, "we don't know the cause(s). But that seems to make the theory proposed a little more tenuous, doesn't it?

 

[Mountainmike]

In the interest of cutting down on some of the noise/ talking past each other/ etc it would be helpful if those speaking, and/or the scientists they reference, would stop speaking in terms of causation by randomness and chance. There is no such thing. If they mean it only as a figure of speech, a substitute for "I don't know", then it should be understood that way —eg, "we don't know the cause(s). But that seems to make the theory proposed a little more tenuous, doesn't it?

Those speaking are scientists. My case electronic physics.

Quantum events are truly random. Bond formation is a quantum event.
The aggregation of chemicals to form the first living cell included bond formation
So life was therefore a random event (as presumed by abiogeneticists).

For the present I regard abiogenesis as little more than conjecture. I remain to be convinced. But if that was pathway to life it was indeed random.

If a random event can be called a “cause“ is a philosophical not chemical distinction.

Suffice to say in essence is it is practical to trigger an atom bomb to destroy the world from an observer of a single photon quantum event, so it is indeed possible to regard a single quantum random event observed as the cause of a macro event.

Quantum events are not the same as the deterministic that is so complex it cannot be predicted except as bulk statistics. Individual interactions in that case are deterministic not random. Such as Thermodynamics .

 

[Mark Quayle]

Quantum events are truly random.

Wrong. If quantum events are dependent on truly random causation, then quantum events are bogus events. There is no truly random cause, and all events are caused.

Do you not see how random causation is self-contradictory? It invokes something specific determined by chance —chance determination is self-contradictory. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

But if all you mean by random is that we don't yet know the cause, then we can go with the figure of speech.

 

[Mountainmike]

Wrong. If quantum events are dependent on truly random causation, then quantum events are bogus events. There is no truly random cause, and all events are caused.

Do you not see how random causation is self-contradictory? It invokes something specific determined by chance —chance determination is self-contradictory. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

But if all you mean by random is that we don't yet know the cause, then we can go with the figure of speech.

philosophical sophistry.
You assume a cause. You do not demonstrate a cause.
Bohr, many others, and ultimately Einstein disagreed with you.
bell experiments confirmed.

of course materialists still demand their causal deterministic universe.
Its a shame -for them - the real one doesn’t live up to their assumptions.

even the pillar of objectivity collapses on deep investigation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

philosophical sophistry.
You assume a cause. You do not demonstrate a cause.

Scientific (as if! ) sophistry. The fact that one doesn't know a cause is no demonstration that there is no cause. Science (so far) has accepted the pervasiveness of causation. By invoking supposedly true randomness, the science community has entered the realm of the bogus.

Does science abandon logic and math when they don't yet have the formulae?

 

[Mountainmike]

Scientific (as if! ) sophistry. The fact that one doesn't know a cause is no demonstration that there is no cause. Science (so far) has accepted the pervasiveness of causation. By invoking supposedly true randomness, the science community has entered the realm of the bogus.

Does science abandon logic and math when they don't yet have the formulae?

You really don’t get it do you?
go back to school.
Your simplistic assumptions no longer work,
classical physics cannot explain quantum mechanics,
start by studying the arguments that raged between Bohr and Einstein.
Bohr won.

Then study what science actually is.
It is an empirical not a fundamental model based on our limited senses.
science observes and uses what the universe is normally observed to “do“it does not explain What it “is.”
What IS gravity?
An observation of what it normally “does, but even that has problems. They call one problem dark matter.
its the name for an error term in the model.
. It may not have any undrelying physical significance.
We cannot know what the universe is , or all that is in it, only how it normally interacts with our senses. We know it only from shadows. Ask Aristotle.
Ask Kant. Study quantum reality.

if your physics is up to it , study “ through two doors at once”
your causal assumptions are false.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You really don’t get it do you?
go back to school.
Your simplistic assumptions no longer work,
classical physics cannot explain quantum mechanics,
start by studying the arguments that raged between Bohr and Einstein.
Bohr won.

Classical physics is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about good sense. Do you not see that a conclusion that claims reality to mere chance assumes validity to mere chance to begin with? And that, it does without any evidence, but the appearance of randomness. It is worse than cosmological arguments for God that depend on, "We say...".

Then study what science actually is.
It is an empirical not a fundamental model based on our limited senses.
science observes and uses what the universe is normally observed to “do“it does not explain What it “is.”
What IS gravity?
An observation of what it normally “does, but even that has problems. They call one problem dark matter.
its the name for an error term in the model.
. It may not have any undrelying physical significance.
We cannot know what the universe is , or all that is in it, only how it normally interacts with our senses. We know it only from shadows. Ask Aristotle.
Ask Kant. Study quantum reality.

if your physics is up to it , study “ through two doors at once”
your causal assumptions are false.

Well, good, then. Finally, I begin to see that you agree with me that quantum physics only comes to: "This is how we at present have to describe reality, since we can't see the ultimate cause(s).

So if Aristotle and Kant agree with me that we don't know much about our universe, HOW, in the name of good sense, can we determine that anything can happen by the causation of mere chance???

I have to say, that if you really think Chance can do anything, then you are just giving "I don't know how" a pretty name.

I've studied the double-slit experiment, (and have yet to even hear a valid explanation how viewing it can be done with no influence to the elements of the experiment). If you believe that demonstrates causation by chance, you are way off. At best, it only shows that our usual intuitive thinking doesn't always apply (and even that is not proven there) —it does not even begin to imply that anything can happen by mere chance.

 

[Mountainmike]

Classical physics is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about good sense. Do you not see that a conclusion that claims reality to mere chance assumes validity to mere chance to begin with? And that, it does without any evidence, but the appearance of randomness. It is worse than cosmological arguments for God that depend on, "We say...".

Well, good, then. Finally, I begin to see that you agree with me that quantum physics only comes to: "This is how we at present have to describe reality, since we can't see the ultimate cause(s).

So if Aristotle and Kant agree with me that we don't know much about our universe, HOW, in the name of good sense, can we determine that anything can happen by the causation of mere chance???

I have to say, that if you really think Chance can do anything, then you are just giving "I don't know how" a pretty name.

I've studied the double-slit experiment, (and have yet to even hear a valid explanation how viewing it can be done with no influence to the elements of the experiment). If you believe that demonstrates causation by chance, you are way off. At best, it only shows that our usual intuitive thinking doesn't always apply (and even that is not proven there) —it does not even begin to imply that anything can happen by mere chance.

If you want to talk physics we will talk physics. Which case random is real.

if you want to impose your conjecture on an unknowable universe go ahead,
but don’t then pretend scientism is other than your faith. Strongly held by many but it is pure faith.


Science does not “ explain “ anything . It is empirical , it observes what normally happens and codifies it as patterns. since has no “explanation” for what it presently observes and codifies, and cross relates, it is not justified believing it can explain anything else.

I ask again what “ is “ gravity. you can’t answer except in terms of an observed behaviour. Ie what it normally is observed to “do”. How it interacts with senses.

what the universe “ is” and “why” it is what it is, indeed what is there that is undetectable , is a question science can never answer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Science does not “ explain “ anything . It is empirical , it observes what normally happens and codifies it as patterns. since has no “explanation” for what it presently observes and codifies, and cross relates, it is not justified believing it can explain anything else.

Don't give me that. The science community attempts to explain all it can, and where it can go no further, it sits and waits, conjecturing like old men on a bench. True science, yes, you are right about that. Don't try to conflate the two.

I ask again what “ is “ gravity. you can’t answer except in terms of an observed behaviour. Ie what it normally is observed to “do”. How it interacts with senses.

I could ask the same thing. I didn't claim to be able to explain it, nor much of anything else. I haven't even tried to answer. Why should I? Why repeat yourself here?

what the universe “ is” and “why” it is what it is, indeed what is there that is undetectable , is a question science can never answer.

Of course, which is why the science community's latest and greatest notions can never do the job. Not even Quantum Physics, at whatever level it has arrived, and no, it cannot demonstrate there is randomness nor chance. Only that we are able to use the concepts (such as they are) to promote our approximations.

 

[Mountainmike]

Don't give me that. The science community attempts to explain all it can, and where it can go no further, it sits and waits, conjecturing like old men on a bench. True science, yes, you are right about that. Don't try to conflate the two.

I could ask the same thing. I didn't claim to be able to explain it, nor much of anything else. I haven't even tried to answer. Why should I? Why repeat yourself here?

Of course, which is why the science community's latest and greatest notions can never do the job. Not even Quantum Physics, at whatever level it has arrived, and no, it cannot demonstrate there is randomness nor chance. Only that we are able to use the concepts (such as they are) to promote our approximations.

I have no idea where you are coming from!

Since you rightly confess to having no idea, why does randomness offend you so much?
and why do you put such faith in the idea that one day science might explain all without randomness?
why do you expect science to explain anything at all in a universe the extent of whose content it cannot know?
science models. It does not explain.

Absolute faith in a deterministic objective causal universe , when there is plenty of evidence it is other than that, is what I find strange.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Since you rightly confess to having no idea, why does randomness offend you so much?
and why do you put such faith in the idea that one day science might explain all without randomness?

Strange how you find it useful to misrepresent me. I didn't say I have no idea. I said that I don't know what gravity "is".

How can what doesn't exist (such as randomness) offend me? There isn't even such a thing, except in the mind of people who need an excuse for not knowing why a thing happens, or people who need a shortcut to continue their logic, since stopping at the point of "I don't know" isn't productive to them. What offends me is the notion that God is subject to causes from outside himself, because that is a claim against God's omnipotence.

why do you expect science to explain anything at all in a universe the extent of whose content it cannot know?
science models. It does not explain.

I don't expect science to explain anything. I expect scientists, the science community, to attempt to explain all they can. You're still conflating science with the science community, plus you're misrepresenting what I said (again).

Absolute faith in a deterministic objective causal universe , when there is plenty of evidence it is other than that, is what I find strange.

My faith is in God, from whom all fact descends and by whom it is upheld. There is no evidence that anything occurs apart from his causation. I hope it is mere ignorance, and not something more obscene, that anyone claiming to believe in God, thinks God is subject to independent causes from outside himself, and worse, thinks that God is subject to logically self-contradictory human substitutes for admission of their own ignorance. You demonstrate faith in CHANCE.

 

[Mountainmike]

Strange how you find it useful to misrepresent me. I didn't say I have no idea. I said that I don't know what gravity "is".

How can what doesn't exist (such as randomness) offend me? There isn't even such a thing, except in the mind of people who need an excuse for not knowing why a thing happens, or people who need a shortcut to continue their logic, since stopping at the point of "I don't know" isn't productive to them. What offends me is the notion that God is subject to causes from outside himself, because that is a claim against God's omnipotence.

I don't expect science to explain anything. I expect scientists, the science community, to attempt to explain all they can. You're still conflating science with the science community, plus you're misrepresenting what I said (again).

My faith is in God, from whom all fact descends and by whom it is upheld. There is no evidence that anything occurs apart from his causation. I hope it is mere ignorance, and not something more obscene, that anyone claiming to believe in God, thinks God is subject to independent causes from outside himself, and worse, thinks that God is subject to logically self-contradictory human substitutes for admission of their own ignorance. You demonstrate faith in CHANCE.

“ what doesnt exist -randomness” .… is a belief.
why do you say God cannot create randomness?
He can still intervene as He wishes.

Let’s suppose QM is amodel of reality ( as opposed to a model of observation of reality)
there is no reason at all to suppose that on days He wishes He can decide to align the outcomes of all the random events to constructively interfere. Then the theoretically possible (, but probability so low it cannot happen ) might just happen and the position of the wall materialises briefly to bump you on the head! it could be how God does miracles…

As for subjectivity of QM rather than objectivity , why not ? Many supernatural experiences are limited in observation.

You are trying to constrain God by saying he can’t do random!
You cannot limit Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

“ what doesnt exist -randomness” .… is a belief.
why do you say God cannot create randomness?

He can still intervene as He wishes.

You are trying to constrain God by saying he can’t do random!

You continue to misrepresent me. Did I say he can't? Or more, something to the effect that the notion is bogus?

Again, the notion is logically self-contradictory: "Chance" by definition is randomness. It cannot determine anything. It is uncaused, and uncausing.

One more time, 'random' or 'chance' is just a placeholder for, "I DON'T KNOW". It is a figure of speech in common use —not a governing principle.

It is ludicrous to claim, "God can do the logically self-contradictory". The whole notion is bogus. It's like claiming that God is not omnipotent because he can't make a rock too big for him to pick up.

Let’s suppose QM is amodel of reality ( as opposed to a model of observation of reality)
there is no reason at all to suppose that on days He wishes He can decide to align the outcomes of all the random events to constructively interfere. Then the theoretically possible (, but probability so low it cannot happen ) might just happen and the position of the wall materialises briefly to bump you on the head! it could be how God does miracles…

As for subjectivity of QM rather than objectivity , why not ? Many supernatural experiences are limited in observation.

Unless by "random events" there, you mean events we have no way to predict, you have once again presented a self-contradiction: If God can align outcomes, they are not random. If you only mean, events that we don't currently know how to predict, even then, all you have suggested is that God can decide to do the unusual. Walla! —miracle!

 

[Mountainmike]

You continue to misrepresent me. Did I say he can't? Or more, something to the effect that the notion is bogus?

Again, the notion is logically self-contradictory: "Chance" by definition is randomness. It cannot determine anything. It is uncaused, and uncausing.

One more time, 'random' or 'chance' is just a placeholder for, "I DON'T KNOW". It is a figure of speech in common use —not a governing principle.

It is ludicrous to claim, "God can do the logically self-contradictory". The whole notion is bogus. It's like claiming that God is not omnipotent because he can't make a rock too big for him to pick up.



Unless by "random events" there, you mean events we have no way to predict, you have once again presented a self-contradiction: If God can align outcomes, they are not random. If you only mean, events that we don't currently know how to predict, even then, all you have suggested is that God can decide to do the unusual. Walla! —miracle!

With respect the bell experiments were designed to discover the difference between “ state exists but unknown till observed” and “state does not exist till observed” . It is Emphatically the latter As Einstein hated and Bohr predicted . Einstein was Convinced God didn’t play dice, but ultimately conceded that he did.

in addition Wigner’s friend paradox proven by an experiment with 6 photons shows that observed state is truly subjective for the same outcome. Your reality and mine are different. We really can observe different states.

if that is how God designed the universe to manifest , who are we to second guess His design? What underlies our observations is truly unknowable.

He can do as he wishes.

In my view Your limited intellect ( by Gods standards) is limiting God.
We cannot impose determinism or objectivity , just because they fit our narrow intellect better.
they are what science has to impose to make any progress. But as any software guy will tell you… garbage in, garbage out.

Some parts of the universe were designed to pass tests of randomness.
since science is only a model, so be it. That’s what God decided.

 

[Mark Quayle]

With respect the bell experiments were designed to discover the difference between “ state exists but unknown till observed” and “state does not exist till observed” . It is Emphatically the latter As Einstein hated and Bohr predicted . Einstein was Convinced God didn’t play dice, but ultimately conceded that he did.

Can you produce a citation that Einstein ultimately conceded that God did play dice?

in addition Wigner’s friend paradox proven by an experiment with 6 photons shows that observed state is truly subjective for the same outcome. Your reality and mine are different. We really can observe different states.

if that is how God designed the universe to manifest , who are we to second guess His design? What underlies our observations is truly unknowable.

He can do as he wishes.

But, it seems to me rather silly to conclude by mere observation, considering that different people observed different effects, that anything is truly random. If 'state does not exist until observed', then I should think it is rather obvious that 'state is caused'. It may not sit well with a mind that has until then always thought that observation was only passive, but it is what it is. Furthermore, even 'it is what it is', is only a conclusion we draw from the experiment, and THAT too, is merely by our limited observation.

Amen he can do as he wishes, and THERE is the point, that all things are caused, not random. If God designed something to 'manifest' a certain way, it is caused to do so. Furthermore, the fact that you use 'manifest' demonstrates the fact that it is only how we see it, as though it is random. We have no way to know it actually is random. To the contrary, however, we DO have a way to know it is not random, even when we do not know the immediate cause(s).

In my view Your limited intellect ( by Gods standards) is limiting God.
We cannot impose determinism or objectivity , just because they fit our narrow intellect better.
they are what science has to impose to make any progress. But as any software guy will tell you… garbage in, garbage out.

No, it is not limiting God. As you expressed, God is not limited by anything I do or think. I freely admit that our narratives are only ours —even the best of them. I have gone out of my way many times to express the same thing. Even what you say below demonstrates our incapacity to 'fathom the depths'.

Some parts of the universe were designed to pass tests of randomness.
since science is only a model, so be it. That’s what God decided.

I expect here you mean, designed to appear to us to behave randomly. It should be rather obvious that if God designed something, it is, by very definition of 'designed', not random.

 

[Halbhh]

causation by randomness and chance. There is no such thing

Ah, the intended meaning (if I was saying something like that) is how nature appears to be organized so that it works beautifully and perfectly yet also appears unlikely to be all predetermined (Bell Test experiments in modern physics have made it seem likely that nature has randomness instead of determinism; that the classical 'clockwork universe' idea is only an approximation that isn't really accurate). In that case, you have both randomness in nature, and order, naturally....
How? In short, because vast numbers of particles behaving randomly on the individual level but by fixed laws of probability will then create macro systems (large collections of particles) that have order.

The reason particles with movements/actions that happen (seemingly by random chance) but also by fixed probabilities lead to ordered systems is because of the physics (relationships) of the particles.

In this way, the chaos of the individual particles still creates a reliable macro phenomena. Naturally. Order arises from chaos naturally. Like a hand and glove.

It's because the laws the particles are following are fixed/ordered, the probabilities reliably constant. So, the individual particle cannot be predicted, nor the weather a year out to precision (down to how many tenths of a inch of rain in Austin on May 24, 2024, etc.), yet nevertheless, we can predict often very well whether it will rain hours later today...