Two Varieties of Chance
Feb 16, 2019 20:48:14 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Feb 16, 2019 20:48:14 GMT -6
We must understand that there are two kinds of chance. The kind of chance we are most used to is the kind of chance which occurs in a closed system. Examples would be drawing an ace on the first try from a full deck of cards. In fact, every time we use the term “chance” in normal conversation, this is what we mean; a chance where there are a finite number of well-defined possibilities, and every chance taken must yield some result.
But in speaking of chance as the true genesis of everything, we either are not talking about this sort of chance at all or we are very mistaken in our use of language. For this sort of chance can yield any result or even no result at all, and such terms as “attempts,” “trials,” “rolls of the dice,” and “possibilities” have no meaning at all – in fact, they are totally out of place in this kind of discussion. The kinds of chance we are used to can only come about in time, with matter and with well-defined possibilities for outcomes.
How can we use such “dependent” chance operations to define the “possibilities” or “odds” of the self-creation ex nihilo of time and mater themselves? The gulf is so wide between the two kinds of chance, that even analogy breaks down when attempting to describe the independent by the dependent. I believe what we call chance may or may not be God’s hand working within His own creation, but it is certain that the creation itself is, in fact, a creation, and an event or sequence about which we cannot even imagine a vocabulary.
How can we believe that time plus chance produced the world? Chance working with what? And without something with which to work being there how could there even be odds? And what produced the time within which chance operations of this nature are to have occurred?
Furthermore, if evolution is the product of time plus chance, if things arose spontaneously, gradually, or in “spurts and spells” it is obvious that there is no rationality at all behind things, that changes come and go without rhyme or reason (which, if true would mean the end of “uniformitarianism” and scientific research of all sorts). So how, in such a “universe,” is faith that “the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning” justified? How is belief in uniformity compatible with a universe governed only by time plus chance? How can observation yield anything at all to be “interpreted” within an irrationality of this magnitude?
This is important because if we reject a designer-God as the Creator, He is not simply replaced by time and chance. The existence of time and chance themselves must have an origin and an explanation. And absolutely nothing in the universe known to man, neither thought nor being, can provide an analogy for their birth.
- Todd
But in speaking of chance as the true genesis of everything, we either are not talking about this sort of chance at all or we are very mistaken in our use of language. For this sort of chance can yield any result or even no result at all, and such terms as “attempts,” “trials,” “rolls of the dice,” and “possibilities” have no meaning at all – in fact, they are totally out of place in this kind of discussion. The kinds of chance we are used to can only come about in time, with matter and with well-defined possibilities for outcomes.
How can we use such “dependent” chance operations to define the “possibilities” or “odds” of the self-creation ex nihilo of time and mater themselves? The gulf is so wide between the two kinds of chance, that even analogy breaks down when attempting to describe the independent by the dependent. I believe what we call chance may or may not be God’s hand working within His own creation, but it is certain that the creation itself is, in fact, a creation, and an event or sequence about which we cannot even imagine a vocabulary.
How can we believe that time plus chance produced the world? Chance working with what? And without something with which to work being there how could there even be odds? And what produced the time within which chance operations of this nature are to have occurred?
Furthermore, if evolution is the product of time plus chance, if things arose spontaneously, gradually, or in “spurts and spells” it is obvious that there is no rationality at all behind things, that changes come and go without rhyme or reason (which, if true would mean the end of “uniformitarianism” and scientific research of all sorts). So how, in such a “universe,” is faith that “the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning” justified? How is belief in uniformity compatible with a universe governed only by time plus chance? How can observation yield anything at all to be “interpreted” within an irrationality of this magnitude?
This is important because if we reject a designer-God as the Creator, He is not simply replaced by time and chance. The existence of time and chance themselves must have an origin and an explanation. And absolutely nothing in the universe known to man, neither thought nor being, can provide an analogy for their birth.
- Todd