Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

quote:

---

There is a good series on the concept of chance which I listen to regularly.

---

Based on the quotes you offer here, it doesn't seem to be very good.

quote:

---

Their basic premise is that chance is logical only when verified by probability

---

That would be a very silly thing to say. Can you explain what they mean ? Because it certainly isn't clear.

quote:

---

Can something come from nothing? Was "chance" the cosmic power behind creation? Despite scientific advances, there remains an undercurrent of irrationality in scientific writing.

---

I hardly think that their refusal to understand the relevant science - even at a layman's level - indicates that science is irrational in any respect.

What are the chances of rolling a six? What's the probability of rolling a six?What's the difference?

when it comes to a dice....nothing. A dice is governed by weight, inertia, angle and force of throw, etc...and this can all be measured. Thus in the context of probability, chance is a perfectly useful and valid word.Its when we throw phrases out there like "The universe evolved (or came into being) by chance.First of all, it is impossible for anything to at one time not exist and then to later exist.Out of nothing, nothing comes. And chance as used in this example has no assigned or even estimated probability...chance simply represents an unknown probability.This is an incorrect way to think about chance and.or use the term. Chance cannot cause anything because chance is of itself nothing.

So is this just the arrogance of the ignorant, or just plain lying ? And how could either be considered good?

I am not knowingly lying nor am I arrogant apart from believing through faith and considering that better than evidence. I believe that nothing happens "by chance". That is why i am a cosmological creationist. God exists.Chance is the anti-creator in this context.

These are just bear assertions. The concept of 'nothing' is not something you or I understand. Hawkings thinks rather differently.

But no-one does say that; rather, liars put it forward as a strawman of the atheist position. Not only is that possible, it's usual. Well, this is just playing with words. You could play similarly silly games with the words "by design" if you wanted to, but why would you want to?To say "X happened by design" means "X happened as a result of a process directed by the intention of a sentient being". It does not mean that there's some non-abstract thing called Design that caused it to happen, and no-one would think it did mean that unless they were determined to play silly buggers. In the same way, to say "X happened by chance" is to say "X happened as the result of a process which had a possibility of turning out some other way".

Really? So Phat has been in existence since the dawn of time? Perhaps you might want to rephrase your statement just a bit.Beyond that, your statement would seem to imply that the universe itself was not actually created. Maybe that is something ICANT might agree with, but is it something that you meant to say? So you assert. At least when you stick to simply making assertion you are not making arguments that you cannot defend, such as the one below: And therefore, what?First of all, evolutionist don't say that the universe or evolution means things happening by chance. That is instead how creationist describe abiogenesis, evolution and scientific cosmology.Have you ever spilled anything, Phat? What was the result? Nothing?

I don't believe that you are being accused of lying. On the other hand, someone who bothered to author an entire book denouncing a viewpoint that nobody seems to hold is a different matter entirely. It is difficult to imagine accomplishing this feat without a little peek at how evolution and cosmology are actually described unless your intent was something other than the actual rebuttal you claim this book to be.

quote:

---

I am not knowingly lying nor am I arrogant apart from believing through faith and considering that better than evidence

---

I am not accusing you of that. I am accusing you of endorsing one of the two, and I would like to know which one. Or do you have some other explanation for the obvious misrepresentation you attribute to this podcast ?

We don't throw out phrases like that. If the probability is unknown, how can you dismiss it as "impossible"?Edited by ringo, : Corrected quote.

Because if there was even the slightest possibility of chance, God would be an anachronism.

quote:

---

God is conceived as a self-existent, eternal being who possesses intrinsically the power of being. Such power is a sufficient cause for creation. Time and chance have no being, and consequently no power. Yet they are able to be so effective as to render God an anachronism. At least with God we have a potential miracle-worker. With chance we have nothing with which to work the miracle. Chance offers us a rabbit without a hatwhat's even more astonishingwithout a magician.

---

I agree witrh the logic of this theologian. I don't mean to sound as if I dismiss science...but I am saying that I agree that neither time, space, nor chance in and of themselves as defined have the power to create anything.

Chances are I'm arrogant.(pun intended)

So why is his imagination better than reality ?

the whole point is this: His imagination is reality. There is no probability involved. Is that arrogant to state? To me it is even more arrogant for people to claim that random sequences of events produced Cosmological creation by chance. It shows that people value randomness more than belief in certainty. Would you dismiss God as unknown? (apart from the character of legend and mythos)Edited by Phat, : No reason given.