Science and Random Chance

[brandymmiller]

Many have attempted to explain the existence of our universe and all of its many complex factors by posing the hypothesis that it exists, not because there is a God who created it, but by means of random chance. However, science cannot support such a hypothesis because science** depends **on the fact that every particle in the universe operates according to a set of knowable laws and that they ***do not deviate ***from these laws. In a universe in which random chance operated, there would truly be no point in conducting any experiments whatsoever since one could never be certain of achieving the same results no matter how carefully controlled the experiment. Even when, as in the case of the toss of a six-sided die, there is some element of randomness it always occurs within a restricted set of parameters. For example, when tossing the aforementioned six sided die, I will always achieve a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. I will never receive the result of a 20, or a -10, or any other number other than the ones which are inscribed upon the face of that die. Thus, in our orderly universe the random element is contained within a set of operational parameters so that even things which seem random operate according to a set law which guides the amount of freedom they have to be random. In a random chance universe, you absolutely COULD obtain a result outside of the starting set of variables since the die itself could suddenly develop an additional side, an additional 10 sides, or collapse altogether and have no sides.

 

[mandateman]

I dont believe that the second theroy is true either that the universe has a set of parameters wherein the universe can be allowed to develop by random chance within those parameters. Because there is no such possibility of random chance to God. Since he knows all things there cannot be anything that can happen that he does not know would happen therefore it is not chance but foreseen. Further according to the catholic teaching regarding providence there is nothing that is allowed to happen that did not need his assistance, acceptance or approval.

 

[wanstronian]

Many have attempted to explain the existence of our universe and all of its many complex factors by posing the hypothesis that it exists, not because there is a God who created it, but by means of random chance. However, science cannot support such a hypothesis because science** depends **on the fact that every particle in the universe operates according to a set of knowable laws and that they ***do not deviate ***from these laws. In a universe in which random chance operated, there would truly be no point in conducting any experiments whatsoever since one could never be certain of achieving the same results no matter how carefully controlled the experiment. Even when, as in the case of the toss of a six-sided die, there is some element of randomness it always occurs within a restricted set of parameters. For example, when tossing the aforementioned six sided die, I will always achieve a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. I will never receive the result of a 20, or a -10, or any other number other than the ones which are inscribed upon the face of that die. Thus, in our orderly universe the random element is contained within a set of operational parameters so that even things which seem random operate according to a set law which guides the amount of freedom they have to be random. In a random chance universe, you absolutely COULD obtain a result outside of the starting set of variables since the die itself could suddenly develop an additional side, an additional 10 sides, or collapse altogether and have no sides.

A number of basic errors in your reasoning:

Firstly, you are applying the laws of an extant universe to postulate that that universe could not have been created. How do you know whether the same laws were true prior to the universe existing?

Secondly, you are comparing the chances of rolling a 6 on a die, to the chances that things will happen in a certain way within a universe comprised of trillions and trillions of atoms. This comparison also ignores the fundamental differences between macro and quantum physics.

Thirdly, you seem to be assuming that an unexplained “God” overcomes, in one fell swoop, all the obstacles you have erroneously invented for a natural origin to the universe. (At least you’re not alone in this fallacy!)

Here, as in your comment on the “Which is more economical…” thread, you are commenting without the benefit of any knowledge on, or logical grasp of, the subject.

 

[wanstronian]

I dont believe that the second theroy is true either that the universe has a set of parameters wherein the universe can be allowed to develop by random chance within those parameters. Because there is no such possibility of random chance to God. Since he knows all things there cannot be anything that can happen that he does not know would happen therefore it is not chance but foreseen. Further according to the catholic teaching regarding providence there is nothing that is allowed to happen that did not need his assistance, acceptance or approval.

I don’t really think you can reject a theory on the basis of a hypothesis. At least the former has some weight of evidence!

 

[brandymmiller]

I dont believe that the second theroy is true either that the universe has a set of parameters wherein the universe can be allowed to develop by random chance within those parameters. Because there is no such possibility of random chance to God. Since he knows all things there cannot be anything that can happen that he does not know would happen therefore it is not chance but foreseen. Further according to the catholic teaching regarding providence there is nothing that is allowed to happen that did not need his assistance, acceptance or approval.

Please allow me to clarify my post, since I seem to have confused you:
God established the order of things. Anything which happens which appears random is operating within a set of parameters which HE established.

 

[brandymmiller]

A number of basic errors in your reasoning:

Firstly, you are applying the laws of an extant universe to postulate that that universe could not have been created. How do you know whether the same laws were true prior to the universe existing?

I would like to understand your position, Wanstronian, but you aren’t making it easy to do. I never postulated that that universe could not have been created. A universe containing random chance could indeed have been created. What I postulate is that you couldn’t conduct a scientific experiment IN that universe since science relies on the premise that we can test things and be certain of the things we are testing responding in exactly the same way every time - something you would never be certain of in a random chance universe.

 

[liquidpele]

I would like to understand your position, Wanstronian, but you aren’t making it easy to do. I never postulated that that universe could not have been created. A universe containing random chance could indeed have been created. What I postulate is that you couldn’t conduct a scientific experiment IN that universe since science relies on the premise that we can test things and be certain of the things we are testing responding in exactly the same way every time - something you would never be certain of in a random chance universe.

The problem is that you’re trying to apply attributes from this universe to before the universe existed. You’re right that our universe is not really technically random, it is set on many rules and is simply very chaotic and complicated.

The point is that you can’t apply that to before all that existed. If indeed the universe was “created”, trying to say it was like X or that Z applies to it is like accusing someone of murder before they are born.

 

[crazzeto]

A number of basic errors in your reasoning:

Firstly, you are applying the laws of an extant universe to postulate that that universe could not have been created. How do you know whether the same laws were true prior to the universe existing?

There’s a problem with your logic, it’s totally unsupported not just by theology but also by the whole of known science. Essentially you’re throwing out the random suggestion that the whole of the known laws of physics (including time) have always existed, for no reason other that “well you can’t prove they didn’t”.

The problem is that even with all that we know about science, we acknowlege that the laws of physics as we know them, time included, are created. Either they are created by God, or they were created by the explosion of a highly compressed mass of matter, the consequences of which created everything we know. BTW… Mass of matter which always was, creating the know universe. Sounds familiar

At anyrate, my main point here is your throwing out an argument in error just to challenge the poster that it isn’t true. That is a little disingenuous.

Secondly, you are comparing the chances of rolling a 6 on a die, to the chances that things will happen in a certain way within a universe comprised of trillions and trillions of atoms. This comparison also ignores the fundamental differences between macro and quantum physics.

I’ll grant you you can’t just compare everything to a roll of the dice. But you still need to get past my first point. And don’t just re-throw your initial question (even repackaged) hoping to catch something. If you’re going to try and argue the whole of the universe isn’t a random accident and that there isn’t a God then you need at least to do so in the context of known science.

Thirdly, you seem to be assuming that an unexplained “God” overcomes, in one fell swoop, all the obstacles you have erroneously invented for a natural origin to the universe. (At least you’re not alone in this fallacy!)

Well what do we know about God, what we do know is he can be described using the “three O’s”. Omnipitant, Omnipresent, Omnecent. Consider such a being, and then ponder whether such a power is not capable of creating the some total of the know universe. If your answer is no, then I submit that either your reasoning process is flawed, or you’re being disingenuous. At least you wouldn’t be alone in that fallocy.

Here, as in your comment on the “Which is more economical…” thread, you are commenting without the benefit of any knowledge on, or logical grasp of, the subject.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Many have attempted to explain the existence of our universe and all of its many complex factors by posing the hypothesis that it exists, not because there is a God who created it, but by means of random chance.

Let’s define a “random chance” event as something uncaused, unexplainable, and unpredictable just to be sure we’re on the same page. Anyway, your argument doesn’t work as stated; you need to get a little more sophisticated in your understanding of modern science I think.

However, science cannot support such a hypothesis because science** depends **on the fact that every particle in the universe operates according to a set of knowable laws and that they ***do not deviate ***from these laws.

No, it doesn’t. Quantum mechanics is only probabilistic in nature. Determinism was undone in science a long time ago. In fact it is logically impossible to have a universe without “laws” if all that is meant by “laws” is the fact that random events must arise from a certain probability distribution. And these “laws” give rise to predictability at the macro-level, also by logical necessity.

In a universe in which random chance operated, there would truly be no point in conducting any experiments whatsoever since one could never be certain of achieving the same results no matter how carefully controlled the experiment.

It is well known you can’t repeat an experiment and get the same result at the micro-level. However, when you average together many, many events of random chance from a given probability distribution the variance of the distribution becomes astronomically low. There can be fundamental randomness at the micro-level yet predictability at the macro-level.

Even when, as in the case of the toss of a six-sided die, there is some element of randomness it always occurs within a restricted set of parameters. For example, when tossing the aforementioned six sided die, I will always achieve a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. I will never receive the result of a 20, or a -10, or any other number other than the ones which are inscribed upon the face of that die.

That’s true only because the die is in the macro-world.

Thus, in our orderly universe the random element is contained within a set of operational parameters so that even things which seem random operate according to a set law which guides the amount of freedom they have to be random. In a random chance universe, you absolutely COULD obtain a result outside of the starting set of variables since the die itself could suddenly develop an additional side, an additional 10 sides, or collapse altogether and have no sides.

Not so. The rolling of a dice consists of very, very many quantum events. The odds of such a thing happening would be enormously low, because there are so very many, many random quantum events averaged together. Something random must have a certain probability distribution. When you average over many, many events you get a Gaussian distribution with a very, very low variance.

Now you might ask the question, quantum events also occur within a certain framework, there are fine-structure constants, coupling constants, speed of light, etc. which go into the quantum-mechanical equations and stay constant. Imagine if these constants would change with every interaction. The universe would still become predictable at the macro-level, again because one is averaging over many, many events.

 

[wanstronian]

There’s a problem with your logic, it’s totally unsupported not just by theology but also by the whole of known science. Essentially you’re throwing out the random suggestion that the whole of the known laws of physics (including time) have always existed, for no reason other that “well you can’t prove they didn’t”.

The problem is that even with all that we know about science, we acknowlege that the laws of physics as we know them, time included, are created. Either they are created by God, or they were created by the explosion of a highly compressed mass of matter, the consequences of which created everything we know. BTW… Mass of matter which always was, creating the know universe. Sounds familiar

At anyrate, my main point here is your throwing out an argument in error just to challenge the poster that it isn’t true. That is a little disingenuous.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with my logic - I was just pointing out that the assumptions of the original poster were in error. Erroneous base assumption => Erroneous conclusion.

I’ll grant you you can’t just compare everything to a roll of the dice. But you still need to get past my first point. And don’t just re-throw your initial question (even repackaged) hoping to catch something. If you’re going to try and argue the whole of the universe isn’t a random accident and that there isn’t a God then you need at least to do so in the context of known science.

Again, I was just pointing out that although one can easily conceive of the limits of probability when throwing a die, one cannot do so when considering the Universe as a whole. Dismissing ‘random chance,’ in the context it was dismissed in the OP, is seriously flawed logic.

Well what do we know about God, what we do know is he can be described using the “three O’s”. Omnipitant, Omnipresent, Omnecent. Consider such a being, and then ponder whether such a power is not capable of creating the some total of the know universe. If your answer is no, then I submit that either your reasoning process is flawed, or you’re being disingenuous. At least you wouldn’t be alone in that fallocy.

Your logic is deeply, deeply flawed here because you are starting from your desired result, then saying, “If such a being existed, he could easily have created the Universe.” However, clearly without proof of God’s existence, questions as to his nature (omnimaxial attributes) are completely irrelevant. Saying that, “he can be described as X, Y and Z…” means nothing.

To be honest, I’m astounded that you had the cheek to criticise my logic then trot out a statement like that!

 

[brandymmiller]

A number of basic errors in your reasoning:
Firstly, you are applying the laws of an extant universe to postulate that that universe could not have been created. How do you know whether the same laws were true prior to the universe existing?

Let me make myself clear:
I am merely pointing out that the science we use to explore how the universe came into being - Big Bang and other theories - is all based upon the assumption that the universe is an orderly place and that it follows certain laws which don’t vary. I.e. the behavior of neutrons, electrons, and protons can be predicted in any given circumstance. Because the neutrons, electrons, and protons behave in a predictable manner we can predict the way that an element will behave which allows us to use chemistry to create new compounds and molecules. The random chance theories are totally incompatible with the very nature of science because random behavior indicates there is no pattern and thus no predictability and thus no ability to reproduce an experiment.

Secondly, you are comparing the chances of rolling a 6 on a die, to the chances that things will happen in a certain way within a universe comprised of trillions and trillions of atoms. This comparison also ignores the fundamental differences between macro and quantum physics…

I was using a simplistic example to demonstrate a complex concept. The point being that what seems random is not random at all but operating within a given set of parameters. Prime numbers, for example, once thought to be completely random have been discovered to have a pattern
physorg.com/news160994102.html

Thirdly, you seem to be assuming that an unexplained “God” overcomes, in one fell swoop, all the obstacles you have erroneously invented for a natural origin to the universe. (At least you’re not alone in this fallacy!)

God isn’t unexplained, but you reject the explanation. How can you tell me my assumption is a fallacy when you have yet to disprove God’s existence? You can tell me it’s unlikely, you can tell me you are doubtful and these things would be true but you have absolutely NO grounds to call it a fallacy until you can disprove His existence.

Here, as in your comment on the “Which is more economical…” thread, you are commenting without the benefit of any knowledge on, or logical grasp of, the subject

The loving thing to do, Wanstronian, when you believe someone is in error is to educate them if you think they are ignorant or gently correct them if you think they have made a mistake. Your behavior has been abrasive, rude, and couter productive to creating the kind of relationships that lead to friendships which lead in turn to the openness to people listening to your point of view. I posted this, and I knew that it would lead to debate. Debate I do not mind - it’s instructive to me as much as it is to you. I do have gaps in my knowledge, and sometimes faulty logic. I am open to changing my mind when these things are pointed out to me.

 

[brandymmiller]

However, clearly without proof of God’s existence, questions as to his nature (omnimaxial attributes) are completely irrelevant. Saying that, “he can be described as X, Y and Z…” means nothing.!

Wanstronian - I know this will seem off topic to you but it is relevant to the point at hand. Do you believe in love?

 

[crazzeto]

Nothing whatsoever wrong with my logic - I was just pointing out that the assumptions of the original poster were in error. Erroneous base assumption => Erroneous conclusion.

Yeah there is some thing worng, you’re randomly postulating all new scientific theory for what reason? Just to try and make a point in an argument? I’m sorry that doesn’t work, for your points to have validity you have to stay with in the realms of accepted norms. If you dont’ believe in God then well, for as much as I hope and pray you might have a change of heart… I would at least ask that you keep your responces contained with in the norms of natural law.

What you suggest voilates what is known about the natural universe, there for you’ve pretty much invalidated your own argument. Think of this as “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

Again, I was just pointing out that although one can easily conceive of the limits of probability when throwing a die, one cannot do so when considering the Universe as a whole. Dismissing ‘random chance,’ in the context it was dismissed in the OP, is seriously flawed logic.Your logic is deeply, deeply flawed here because you are starting from your desired result, then saying, “If such a being existed, he could easily have created the Universe.” However, clearly without proof of God’s existence, questions as to his nature (omnimaxial attributes) are completely irrelevant. Saying that, “he can be described as X, Y and Z…” means nothing.

I accept that the universe doesn’t work purely by random chance, it follows laws. I would suggest it follows laws set by God, but at the very least we can accept it follows laws set by nature. In fact I think I opened my post with such and admintion.

However you are equally wrong to suggest that the universe is not so complex that it couldnt’ possibly have just happend naturally. That we didn’t need God to plan it.

To be honest, I’m astounded that you had the cheek to criticise my logic then trot out a statement like that!

Lolz… Okee dokee, so now an Omipotent, Omnipresent and Omnesant being… Some how isn’t those three things? Cute. I find it funny how you can’t even admit that if there was a God, it would have to have those three properties there for clearly it would be capable of creating the entire known universe (and more).

 

[geoformeo]

Hi all,

I’d love to interject a few thoughts into this thread, if I may.

First, there is such a reality as chance. However, chance is not random. All “chances” can be realized by the nature of a) human free will or b) God’s free will; courtesy of quantum mechanics. What may appear as “random chance” to us is by no means random to God. Furthermore, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics enables human free will to exist. But to equate probability with randomness is erroneous. Is it not “law” that quantum mechanics is probabilistic?

Second, those resorting to “you need to brush up on your modern science” need to take their own advice. According to modern science, for those who don’t know, there was a single creation event, occurring 13.7 billion years ago. The universe, and hence, the natural laws, are not eternal. Even if they were eternal–so you’d be willing to grant the eternality of natural laws, but not to an eternal Being? How does that work?

Finally, the OP is right on point. We wouldn’t be sitting here discussing this if the universe were not governed by natural laws that were in and of themselves intelligible and not random and chaotic. Is there apparent randomness and chaos in the universe? There sure seems to be some, at least to our limited minds. But while chance is truth, there is no such thing as randomness, because if there were: 1) there would be no such thing as rationality; 2) there would be no point to consciousness; and 3) randomness itself would be a “law” governing the universe–an underlying order that guides the disorder. And where might that order have come from?

God bless you all.

 

[mandateman]

I would believe that what appears as random chance to us is absolutely planned to the tiniest detail. The parameters set by God where in development takes place is like english on a cue in billiards. For the amateur cannot see the potential until the end is realized to the expert it is already a conclusive victory.

Humans come along in the middle of the play with all the balls in motion and try to figure out the shooter from the movement of the balls.

 

[mandateman]

While marvelling at the universe God has created we forget sometimes that for God this was simple. Further that the universe in comparison to God is not even a speck of dust within another universe. Finite to inifinite.

 

[wanstronian]

Let me make myself clear:
I am merely pointing out that the science we use to explore how the universe came into being - Big Bang and other theories - is all based upon the assumption that the universe is an orderly place and that it follows certain laws which don’t vary. I.e. the behavior of neutrons, electrons, and protons can be predicted in any given circumstance. Because the neutrons, electrons, and protons behave in a predictable manner we can predict the way that an element will behave which allows us to use chemistry to create new compounds and molecules. The random chance theories are totally incompatible with the very nature of science because random behavior indicates there is no pattern and thus no predictability and thus no ability to reproduce an experiment.

I was using a simplistic example to demonstrate a complex concept. The point being that what seems random is not random at all but operating within a given set of parameters. Prime numbers, for example, once thought to be completely random have been discovered to have a pattern
physorg.com/news160994102.html

God isn’t unexplained, but you reject the explanation. How can you tell me my assumption is a fallacy when you have yet to disprove God’s existence? You can tell me it’s unlikely, you can tell me you are doubtful and these things would be true but you have absolutely NO grounds to call it a fallacy until you can disprove His existence.

The loving thing to do, Wanstronian, when you believe someone is in error is to educate them if you think they are ignorant or gently correct them if you think they have made a mistake. Your behavior has been abrasive, rude, and couter productive to creating the kind of relationships that lead to friendships which lead in turn to the openness to people listening to your point of view. I posted this, and I knew that it would lead to debate. Debate I do not mind - it’s instructive to me as much as it is to you. I do have gaps in my knowledge, and sometimes faulty logic. I am open to changing my mind when these things are pointed out to me.

You are correct - I was overly abrasive, for which I apologise.

 

[wanstronian]

Yeah there is some thing worng, you’re randomly postulating all new scientific theory for what reason? Just to try and make a point in an argument? I’m sorry that doesn’t work, for your points to have validity you have to stay with in the realms of accepted norms. If you dont’ believe in God then well, for as much as I hope and pray you might have a change of heart… I would at least ask that you keep your responces contained with in the norms of natural law.

What you suggest voilates what is known about the natural universe, there for you’ve pretty much invalidated your own argument. Think of this as “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

The point I was making - that you still don’t seem to have grasped, is that Brandy’s original post made an assertion regarding the origin of the universe that had, as its basis, an assumption that cannot be shown to be true. I was highlighting the logical error in using laws that we only know to exist since the inception of the universe, to postulate a cause for the universe.

I accept that the universe doesn’t work purely by random chance, it follows laws. I would suggest it follows laws set by God, but at the very least we can accept it follows laws set by nature. In fact I think I opened my post with such and admintion.

Yes, it follows the laws of nature. There is no evidence for God’s existence, therefore no reason to suspect that he made any laws.

However you are equally wrong to suggest that the universe is not so complex that it couldnt’ possibly have just happend naturally. That we didn’t need God to plan it.

I’m having trouble deciphering this comment, sorry. To clarify - my point was that the sheer number of artefacts and processes involved in the universe is such that, even if it is ultimately deterministic, from a human perspective random chance is everywhere. Random in that it would be impossible for us to define the limits of probability for a given event.

Lolz… Okee dokee, so now an Omipotent, Omnipresent and Omnesant being… Some how isn’t those three things? Cute. I find it funny how you can’t even admit that if there was a God, it would have to have those three properties there for clearly it would be capable of creating the entire known universe (and more).

Again, you seem determined to misunderstand me. I’m happy to concede that if a being had those attributes it would be able to perform those tasks. That doesn’t lend any credibility to the existence of such a being.

The flaw in your logic is that you are starting from an assumption that God exists and possesses those qualities, then stating that he could easily have created the universe. That is doubtless true, but it doesn’t remove the glaring logical error whereby you make an assumption (that God exists) that has absolutely zero supporting evidence. You seem to be reaching the conclusion that God created the universe because **if **he existed he would be able to do so. It’s like me saying that if I could defy the laws of physics then I could fly; therefore I can fly.

 

[wanstronian]

Hi all,

I’d love to interject a few thoughts into this thread, if I may.

First, there is such a reality as chance. However, chance is not random. All “chances” can be realized by the nature of a) human free will or b) God’s free will; courtesy of quantum mechanics. What may appear as “random chance” to us is by no means random to God. Furthermore, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics enables human free will to exist. But to equate probability with randomness is erroneous. Is it not “law” that quantum mechanics is probabilistic?

Second, those resorting to “you need to brush up on your modern science” need to take their own advice. According to modern science, for those who don’t know, there was a single creation event, occurring 13.7 billion years ago. The universe, and hence, the natural laws, are not eternal. Even if they were eternal–so you’d be willing to grant the eternality of natural laws, but not to an eternal Being? How does that work?

Quite right - the laws apply to our universe, so they can’t with any confidence, be used to postulate anything regarding the origin of our universe. However, this is what the OP did, so I find this statement difficult to reconcile with your next one…

Finally, the OP is right on point. We wouldn’t be sitting here discussing this if the universe were not governed by natural laws that were in and of themselves intelligible and not random and chaotic.

Quite so. If this is what the OP was trying to convey, I completely agree and apologise for my misunderstanding. There most certainly is a natural order to the universe.

Is there apparent randomness and chaos in the universe? There sure seems to be some, at least to our limited minds. But while chance is truth, there is no such thing as randomness, because if there were: 1) there would be no such thing as rationality; 2) there would be no point to consciousness;

Interesting - what do you consider to be the ‘point’ of consciousness in a non-random universe?

and 3) randomness itself would be a “law” governing the universe–an underlying order that guides the disorder. And where might that order have come from?

I don’t think you can really consider an absence of laws to be a law. Your implication that someone would have had to say, “Let there be no laws” simply belies your belief that this same someone actually said, “Let there be laws X, Y and Z.”

 

[wanstronian]

I would believe that what appears as random chance to us is absolutely planned to the tiniest detail. The parameters set by God where in development takes place is like english on a cue in billiards. For the amateur cannot see the potential until the end is realized to the expert it is already a conclusive victory.

Humans come along in the middle of the play with all the balls in motion and try to figure out the shooter from the movement of the balls.

Nice analogy! Let me take it further. Scientists try to figure out the origin of the motion of the balls, without preconceptions. Theists assume there must have been a shooter and invent reasons why he played that particular shot. Other theists disagree both on the identity of the shooter and the reason for the shot.

p.s. Anybody know the origin of the word ‘english’ in pool? As an Englishman, I watched some US pool a few years back and it took a while before I realised they meant ‘spin.’