Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

Yeah, you may run with a more sophisticated crowd. My liveware interfaces are rather parochial. Yeah, that too for sure. And you'd be right. I don't give a flyin flip what anyone, including myself, says about an unknowing uncaring universe. It just loves playing games with our heads.

This is precisely the reason that, when you drop something in your car, it rolls to the exact opposite place in the universe you can't reach.

You want proof the universe hates us? Deep in The Carina Nebula.

There was a show on todays radio.
Creation By ChanceA good audio podcast.

This guy is full of shit. He is using his own (willful) misunderstanding of the word “chance” as a straw man to push his majik philosophy of ignorance.All we do is see the natural reality that occurred from the complex indeterminate setup of the universe prior to the moment we make an observation.Repeat. That is the “chance occurrence” of a reality manifest from the set of complex indeterminate probabilities in the setup up of a system.Prior to the observation we assess the probabilities of what we may observe. Then we acknowledge that upon observation one of those probabilities came to fruition. That is the “chance” we invoke; the outcome not the determining power.Your majik man, in order to arrive at his pre-determined conclusion, ignorantly asserts that we are invoking some mysterious power we call “chance”, some “demon that jumps into the middle” of the process and causes outcomes, as the determinator of the observation. When in fact all that we have done is look at the probabilities of some outcome and then look at the outcome itself and answer . “since we do not know the complete mechanism, the observation that ultimately resulted occurred by “chance”; occurred as one of the natural members in the set of probabilities.”No one is invoking “chance” as some power to assert its will upon the universe and determine an outcome. Only that one of the natural probabilities that could result was ultimately what we see in our observation. That is the only outcome of “chance”.He asserts that physics are saying “chance” has some ontological reality, some power to affect the outcome of observation, instead of simply acknowledging that an outcome we observed was one of the myriad of natural probabilities that could have resulted.I think your majik man embellished (to say it politely) his apocryphal story of the physicist from Harvard banging is forehead in recognition of an error no Harvard physicist would have ever accepted in the first place. Not unless he was a very poor physicist who doesn’t understand his own discipline.No physicist would say the universe arose by “chance” without a whole lot of underlying explanation of what that means. And what that means, in this case, is that we don’t know how the universe arose but there was some unknown complex indeterminate setup of the pre-universe that resulted in the observation of the universe’s existence. "Chance" as a determining power did not create the universe and no one, except the cunning diabolical religionist, would argue we say otherwise.He goes on the say that since “chance” is NOT a power, has no ontological reality, that it is actually not a thing, that it is no thing, therefor that physicists, asserting that the universe was created by chance, are saying that the universe was created by no--thing, (faster) no-thing, (faster) nothing.How fucking stupid.Not a good audio podcast. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The only "majick" in play here is your methodological naturalism which masquerades for you humans claiming divine status.Frank Tipler: The SingularityI know that some of you have a disdain for videos and even audio podcasts, so I included the transcript with this 11 minute talk.
FRANK J. TIPLER is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of (with John Barrow) The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, about the significance of intelligent life in the universe, and the author of The Physics of Immortality about the ultimate limits of computers, and the role computers will play in the universe, and The Physics of Christianity, about his scientific research into central Christian claims and beliefs.Transcript

quote:

---

Genisi3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil....

---

*sigh*....we've been down this road umpteen million times...but I guess we can revisit it.First of all, who is "us" (in your opinion as to the clear implied meaning of the text)

Normals=language based upon observation and the scientific method.
Lawyers=language based on what gets their client off the hook and pads their wallet
Theologians=language based on their interpretation and belief in defining an absolute truth.Right? or nah

*sigh* Yes we have. Why do you have such a short memory? It appears that the authors of that fictional story were not as finicky about the idea of multiple gods as you are. If nothing else, it suggests that the Bible is not 100% consistent.But what has that got to do with you constantly calling God a liar?

I question your sources on this one. You seem to push the idea that the Bible taught polytheism in the story of Job. I found this article:
The Polytheism of Genesis,Chapter One I would argue that though polytheism and pantheism are basic traits of human nature regarding belief where absolute monotheism is against our basic nature(nobody wants an authority in charge over their mind) ...in my opinion, God exists, (as One Deity over everything) and chose to personally relate to humanity (first by choosing the Jews and later by sending Jesus(His human character personified) and still later by choosing everybody...so as to secularize the belief. Explain to the peanut gallery how I call God a liar. Be specific, keeping in mind that you have no clue what I do, could do, or have done.

I didn't mention Job at all. Your opinion doesn't matter. You keep in mind that I have your post - which I quoted - as a clue. In Message 216, you said, "... you humans claiming divine status." But it isn't us humans claiming divine status. It was God who said we were like Him:

quote:

---

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil....

---

Not us. God.

OK I see the context. And yes, I meant genesis rather than Job. My point is that God foreknew that we were going to become "like Him" in the same way that Lucifer chose to rebel from Heaven and become a god himself. Since there is clearly only One God, don't even try to argue that we are as much gods as God is God. You will lose.

Foreknowledge has nothing to do with it. He said, "the man is become as one of us....""IS". A done deal.And it does not say He foreknew anything. No, that is not clear at all. Nobody said anything about "how much" we are like God. You have already lost, time and time again. You can not back up what the apologists and commentators have told you because it contradicts what's in the book.

I only heard a bit of the Sproul audio and lost interest though maybe I'll listen again later. So I didn't hear him say anything about chance being a power and all that. When he says there is no such thing as chance, though, without going through all the reasoning for it, all he's saying is that nothing happens without God. Which I believe. As for all the complexities that go into the final outcome that we call chance, seems to me that either all of them are chance or all of them are God.But that's me, not Sproul as far as I know.But then rading through your post, which I should probably read more carefully some time, it almost sounds to me like you are objecting to the idea of chance, and are ALMOST saying, well, not that nothing happens without God exactly since you don't believe in God, but something close to that -- something along the lines of there being reasons for various stages of a complex event that we cannot know, and the only reason we call the end result chance is that we can't know the stages. But you know there is a "reason" for all of them even though we can't know it.That's perilously close to saying notning happens without God it seems to me.