Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

Sounds like double talk to me. Of course there is such a thing as the concept of chance, the question might be whether chance is fitting description for reality. Whether or not chance renders God futile is partially a theological question and not a purely philosophical question.

If there were no concept of chance, then what would the denial that chance exists as a concept be other than meaningless double talk. You are denying nothing?

Your claim is essentially that if we knew the value of all involved variables, then the result of a coin flip is determined. I can accept that to be true. The problem for your point is that not every 'chance' operates like dice, coins, and even roulette wheels.

There are non-deterministic processes for which even perfect knowledge of all variables does not allow predicting the outcome. The Schrodinger's Cat illustration is one example. Quantum physical probabilities are fundamentally different from coin flips and dice rolls in that there are no hidden variables which govern their behavior. Some processes are inherently uncertain and no amount of prior knowledge allows us to decide their outcomes on an individual basis.

Only if your personal recourse is to credit or blame God out of human ignorance. I imagine that lots of gamblers blame God for their losses even when the outcome is perfectly calculable and extremely likely. How is what you say here any more correct that the losing Gambler?

Chance is merely a description of state when an outcome is non determinable. Your statement is ridiculous. Of course chance does not contain power. It simply enables us to talk about things that do occur. Of course chance is not a choice.

Or perhaps your thought processes are simply not very rigorous.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The statement does not convey anything meaningful. On the other hand, I do not recall hearing those words when listening to the video, so perhaps something else is actually the basic premise.

This second statement seems to me to be double talk. Essentially what the writer has managed is an irratreification of a concept followed by a denunciation of said reifiication. When people say that something occurs by chance that are not saying that some entity known as chance is the actual cause. So how is it reasonable to denounce such statements by pretending that they do mean that?

In any case, the summary here wouldn't convince me to purchase the book.

Here is a summary from another source:

quote:

---

Because chance can do nothing, and because it violates the law of non-contradiction to claim you "created yourself," they conclude that it's logically impossible that the universe simply popped into existence.

---

Not much better. Is the entire book like this?

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.

I think we understand your belief. What seems pretty funky is your attempt to apply rational thought to what you believe. I sincerely doubt that even the sources you quote came to their set of beliefs using what you describe as logic. That stuff is clearly after the fact of your belief. It contains no persuasive power whatsoever.

After the fact, even probabilistic events leave a certain result. It appears that in telling us that the universe was created out of necessary certainty that you are attributing processes and motivations to God.