What constitutes as random/chance?

[CSchultz]

Thank you Mallon.

I meant to say, Evolutionism but my fingers must have had a mind of their own.

(I guess that would be freudianism.)

 

[Deamiter]

Actually it is not.
Probability is the fact that the coin will "MOST LIKELY" land on one side or the other.

But in actuality, if we take probability into account, we then must add in ALL possible outcomes.

Example: The coin could land perfectly balanced on it's edge. Or land on a corner. It may not come down at all. or it "could" go through a space time continuum and come back as something entirely different than a coin.

.... but it will "Probably" come back down, as a coin, and land on either heads or tails.

Um, what about the mathematical field of probability requires that all possible results be considered? In statistics, we normally only consider the results that have a significant chance of occurring and either way, the result of a single coin toss can still be treated as methodologically random.

Chance, or "Random Chance" on the other hand, implies that "something" is somehow in control of the outcome.

So,... what governs the outcome?

If God does not directly control and govern the outcome of even a simple toss of a coin. Then there are things "Not Governed by God" ... and I refuse to accept that.

That's an odd definition of chance. Dictionary.com yields "the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency:" Since God as a cause cannot be predicted, understood or controlled it seems pretty clear that even if God were poking his fingers and usurping the laws of nature he designed, we could still call it chance.

Of course, chance isn't a well-defined term. I've met lots of people who really love to mention their belief in an imminent God when the randomness of events is mentioned, but the truth is that God has designed the universe and acts within that design to make probability work. That means that individual outcomes (i.e. a flip of a coin) is unpredictable and by definition would fall under the term "chance."

 

[Mallon]

I meant to say, Evolutionism but my fingers must have had a mind of their own.

It's just "evolution."
Evolutionism is a metaphysical belief that no one here supports.

 

[CSchultz]

Evolutionism is a metaphysical belief that no one here supports.

Yes,
"Atheistic" evolution would have been a better term for me to use.

Deamiter, I'm not ignoring you. You have made a good point, I just want to give it some more thought before I post a reply.

Great discussion.

 

[Deamiter]

Yes,
"Atheistic" evolution would have been a better term for me to use.

Deamiter, I'm not ignoring you. You have made a good point, I just want to give it some more thought before I post a reply.

Great discussion.

Aww thanks! I should point out that you too have a good point and that at this point we're agreeing on the details and simply arguing symantics (how's that for demonstrating the diversity of the word "point").

You're focusing on the precise definition of these words which is fine, but my main point is that God has created the universe so that much of it not only appears random but actually is random. Further, as Kerr pointed out, at an atomic level, it's absolutely unpredictable -- i.e. even God couldn't predict the future simply by knowing where every atom exists at a single point in time (note, I believe God knows the future and can cause things to happen in the future, but he's designed the universe so that the future simply cannot be predicted without prior knowledge of the future).

Which words we use to describe the motion of atoms in the atmosphere is important to scientists but not really to the discussion here (i.e. is it random? Should the chance that an atom lands in my lungs be called chance? etc...). The basis of the OP is asking whether God designed the universe with randomness in it, or does he tweak every single event and simply choose each time to make it look random. In my opinion, God created the universe to run without miracles and only chooses to intervene relatively rarely (compared to the number of events overall) and that the universe is designed to run with an element of "random chance." That's not to say God's not in control -- he wrote the rules after all! It just means that the appearance of randomness in nature is no illusion, that's really the way nature works and the way God wants it to work barring divine intervention here and there.

 

[shernren]

I have no idea what the heck you mean. I think you just threw a bunch of words together.

No way! (Word salads are delicious.) Let me try to explain myself down below.

So when is ontological randomness used, is it sort of a measure of personal surprise?

"Ontological randomness" is the direction in which scientism takes randomness. A better word for it is "meaninglessness". That conveys the idea of it perfectly. But the reason I coined this new phrase is because you will often hear comments like:

"We are nothing but a random collection of atoms and molecules."

"Random", in what sense? Certainly, in terms of methodology, the collection of atoms and molecules that make up "me" are really quite random. If you started off labeling every single atom on the planet Earth, you wouldn't have been able to predict which ones would end up in the first life form, and which would have been passed on through the great chain of life, and which would have ended up as my mother's ovum and my father's sperm, and which would have ended up as newborn me - to say the least of which would have ended up as food for me and thus got incorporated in my body. There's no way to figure out where each atom comes from, where each atom is going to, and how long they'll be a part of me. That truly is random, and I am truly a random collection of atoms and molecules in that sense.

But when people say the above statement they tend to think that this somehow proves that we are "meaningless", or have no moral compass, or something similar. Well, just because events are random doesn't prevent them from playing a part in God's grand master schemes. That's the point I'm trying to make with my fancy words.

 

[mythbuster]

Shern,
OK, well, I think its OK, whatever that means, that is to say: meaninglessness. I was just curious in a meaningful way, so to speak.

Can we devise a measurement of meaninglessness?
1 = completely meaningless event.
0 = and event full of meaning.
0 < (human life) < 1

M

 

[Deamiter]

Shern,
OK, well, I think its OK, whatever that means, that is to say: meaninglessness. I was just curious in a meaningful way, so to speak.

Can we devise a measurement of meaninglessness?
1 = completely meaningless event.
0 = and event full of meaning.
0 < (human life) < 1

M

*snarky nit-picking*
Is human life an event?

 

[gluadys]

Yes,
"Atheistic" evolution would have been a better term for me to use.

It would still be best just to say "evolution". Scientifically there is not a whit of difference between "atheistic" and "theistic" evolution and it just confuses things to imply there is.

Better to say "evolution" when the emphasis is on biology and "atheism" or "theism" when the emphasis is on philosophy or faith.