Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

I listened to a good argument by a philosopher who essentially said that chance by definition is nothing. If chance had any probability of existing---as a concept---than God would be an anachronism. So if we flip a coin, it is commonly said that its a 50/50 chance that it lands heads.We can look at the weight relative to the effort used to flip it. We can look at wind speed. We can look at the method used to catch it, whether it is flipped over after catching, even going into the mechanics of arm movement and type of surface the coin lands on...etc. What we cannot say is "what are the chances that the coin will ....." Chance is not a thing. Chance is nothing.To say, for example, that the universe came about by chance is as ridiculous as saying the universe came about by nothing.I will allow for us to explain our definitions.

In your evidence based opinion...has there ever been a time in the history of time that nothing has existed?

from this website:

quote:

---

It is not unusual to hear people suggest that time plus chance will accomplish the evolution of simple organisms into more complex entities. There is a logical error in such statements. There is no such thing as chance. That is, chance is not an entity which causes things to happen.

​

In the tossing a coin we say that we can count on the coin coming up heads half the time, and tails the other half of the time. The odds are 50/50. What we forget is that one flip of the coin involves a whole chain of causal factors. The weight of the coin, the shape of the coin, the upward impulse of the toss, air resistance, spin--the initial conditions--all interact on each toss of the coin. It is a mathematical convenience to say that the probability of heads is 50% and the probability of tails is 50%. The more tosses of the coin we make the closer the spectrum will come to a pure 0.5000 probability. But every individual toss of a coin is controlled by the laws of physics. There is no mechanism called "chance" determining the outcome of any toss of the coin.

---

Its amazing to me how people see no difference between measurable probability and the whole idea of chance as a thing. Edited by Phat, : speklling

Im not attempting to falsify evolution. I have no issues there---it is unimportant to me.What I am trying to do is to define this thing called chance. My take on it is it does not exist. Explain how chance is involved. Do you mean that the event is entirely random? at random
: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method

When the probability can be strictly measured, chance is a good definition. When it cannot be measured, chance becomes a sort of godless deterministic factor. We may as well say God rather than chance. Chance is a way for the human mind to understand the process...yet chance is of itself powerless to determine the process. Intelligent design makes much better sense than random design. The whole idea of we humans being the "winner of a cosmic lottery" is so much nonsense.

There is a good series on the concept of chance which I listen to regularly.Their basic premise is that chance is logical only when verified by probability. Chance in and of itself can't cause anything because chance in and of itself is not anything.
You Tube

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.

---

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.

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.

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)

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.

no what I mean is that i believe that Gods imagination is reality. When God imagines, he does not dream or fantasize about what already is. He creates by imagining.

well...you have a point. But tell me...are these types of unsupported assertions the mark of arrogance simply for valuing faith over evidence?

This must be your belief. I have nothing more to say.

This is where you and I disagree.

Lets start with personal beliefs.
You have always maintained your guiding precept in regards to belief is "Logic, Reason, and Reality."
I have maintained that my belief is that there is literally a spiritual war of sorts between truth and fiction, good and evil, god and satan. You were taught: "Hell? fuggedabodit!" Having a Jewish Mother as an influence in rational thought coupled with critical thinking professors at an Episcopal boarding school also contributed to your rejection of the standard party lines, sound-bites, and precepts of modern day Christianity. You state:

quote:

---

I happen to subscribe to the dogma as out lined in the Nicene Creed but I do not pretend that it is reasonable, logical, rational or understandable.

---

Thus you believe that your faith is irrational. You have provided no evidence that your faith and/or belief includes the idea that God is even approachable. You continually ask "How do we know....." which I can respect in regards to engaging educated skeptics and unbelievers in rational discussions regarding this whole "God" thing....but it is perhaps not the best way to approach belief because you value evidence over belief. So do most of them, however.

​

Then we have the Bible.
You say:

You would think that if the Bible actually was the inerrant word of God there would at least be one universal list of what books would be included.

Thus humans have always disagreed what authority scripture and sacred writings actually have. You have also mentioned a time or two that

I don't reject Bible verses; I just point out that the way people use them does not lead to something reasonable, logical understandable or rational.

. We get it. In your opinion the concept of belief in general is irrational. I believe differently. I believe that belief is stronger than evidence.

​

You mention this to be akin to foolishness. While I admit that many of the CCOI need a good dose of critical thinking and a healthy understanding of reality, I also believe we all could be wrong about what reality actually is.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith