Chance cannot be the cause of anything.

One of the arguments against God is that chance is enough to bring about everything.Originally Posted by TaylorC
The intricacy of nature, for example, which makes a strong argument for intelligent design to me. Saying that an accidental explosion could cause the development of organisms with irreducible complexity - I think that's a bit more far-fetched than belief in a God.[Answer by Russell]
This logic, used by most creationists is flawed on several levels - as I have said elsewhere "it is faulty logic to look at something after the event and talk about the chances/statistics involved in what has come to be and then expanding these slim chances to envoke a creator. It's the same as me commenting that "oh my god, what were the chances of me seeing the car with a numberplate F156 DEW today in the street?" I know it has happened, and thus cannot use that to analyse the probability of an event. The chances of life developing through 'mere chance' may be slim (or otherwise), but the very fact we are here to see that means it has occured, and then using an argument based on the 'chances' of this happening is not valid." In addition to that, we have evidence for the 'accidental explosion'existing. We have a simple heirarchically nested pattern of development of life, with a well documented process by which it developed. There is ample proof for evolution, and it is by no means a far-fetched belief.Error | Ultimate Metal - Heavy Metal Forum and CommunityThe recourse to chance as the cause of everything does not explain anything at all, because if chance in a way can be considered the cause of something or some event, it cannot however be the explanation for the continued existence of that something or the continued duration of an event.Take for example the nose in your face, you can say that chance leads to the existence of the nose in your face and for its operation, but you cannot say that chance is the cause of the continued existence of the nose in your face and the continued event of its operation.Why? Because if you can bring in chance as the cause then you should bring in chance also as the cause in a way why your nose and its function should no longer be existing right away after a split second of time of the nose and its function coming to existence from chance.Unless you attribute to chance also the continued existence of your nose and its dependable operation, in which case that is not chance but God.Yrreg[This message came from my participation in Suite 101. Page not found - Suite 101]

You say that chance cannot be the cause of anything, but isn't it chance that governs which atom in a block of uranium will decay next? I can't promote a topic with so obvious a rebuttal.Maybe you meant to say something a little different? Maybe that matter and energy following the laws of nature can't be the cause of everything? If so, rewrite your opening post along these lines, including evidence and arguments for your position, then post a note here when you're done and I'll take another look.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You say, Percy: Please consider my words reproduced below. Consider how uranium can continue to stay uranium if chance is the sole agent in producing uranium.Yrreg

Do you think there are people here who believe "chance is the sole agent in producing uranium?" I don't think anyone here believes this. I suspect almost everyone here thinks that uranium forms by matter and energy following the laws of nature. And the argument about the nose makes just as little sense to me. There'd be no one for you to debate with. The discussion would quickly devolve into trying to figure out why you believe evolutionists think such weird things, which isn't the topic.Randomness does play a role in nature, but no one here thinks it's responsible for everything. If you want to oppose a position it has to one that other people actually hold.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If no one believes that chance creates everything or anything at all, then that is fine by me.Just the same please read my post at the start of this thread.Mdejess

I said that no one believes chance creates everything. I did not say that no believes chance is responsible for anything at all. I already read your first post. Do you want to continue working toward an acceptable thread proposal, or should I close the thread?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You mean if I may understand you completely: In which case you are saying that some people at least some people believe that chance is responsible at least for something coming to existence.If I may, then we can say that some people though not atheists and not theists believe that chance is responsible for the coming of existence of something at least.Yrreg

As I said in Message 4, "Randomness does play a role in nature, but no one here thinks it's responsible for everything."One example of randomness is radioactive decay. Which atom will decay next is random. There is nothing we can identify that makes a particular atom decay.One example of non-randomness is dropping a ball. If you pick a ball up and release it, it will fall with a great deal of reliability and consistency. There's nothing random about this. It is highly deterministic.Given this evidence, people here think it an inescapable conclusion that both randomness and determinism play a role in nature. No one here thinks chance creates everything.Is there something that evolutionists think is due to chance and that you think is not? Perhaps we could focus on that.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I am talking about creation, but you are talking about extinction.If you think about it, extinction is the opposite of creation, you don't need anything to get something to be extinct, if you are the one sustaining its existence, just stop sustaining it and it will be extinct.Yrreg

This is the first time you've mentioned creation, so no, you weren't talking about creation. And I was giving an example of randomness, not extinction. Another example of randomness is evidenced by the Casimir effect where subatomic particles flit into existence, an example of creation.I'm not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to work with you to develop an acceptable thread proposal. If your next post doesn't make progress toward this goal then I'll close this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director