Please critique this argument against miracles

[psionl0]

Why would there be contradictions?

Tell me how the universe came to be in a particular state if there is no randomness.

 

[Olmstead]

Tell me how the universe came to be in a particular state if there is no randomness.

I assumed the answer is "We don't know (yet)" for both a random and non-random universe, but admittedly this is above my pay grade.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe it is better that you don't make arguments in support of an idea that you don't agree with.

At least, not in this thread. It will only generate a lot of heat that would distract from the main theme of this thread which appears to be whether we can infer anything about God from miracles (or vice versa).

I'm not sure it does all that. Total randomness suggests that the world/universe could be different than it is. And while I think that is possible on a small scale, it probably isn't on a large scale.

 

[arthwollipot]

Do you deny that evolution is a combination of natural selection and random events?

Irrelevant. I'm asking you what forces drive random events. You said that random events were "controlled" by "forces". What "forces" are they?

 

[psionl0]

Irrelevant. I'm asking you what forces drive random events. You said that random events were "controlled" by "forces". What "forces" are they?

What do you expect me to say? That God is pushing and pulling things around?

Events have to have a cause. If you don't like the word "force" then use a different word but don't act as if you have sprung a trap on me.

 

[psionl0]

duplicate post

 

[psionl0]

I'm not sure it does all that. Total randomness suggests that the world/universe could be different than it is.

We only need an element of pure randomness and the rest can be pure laws of physics. Remember the butterfly effect?

And while I think that is possible on a small scale, it probably isn't on a large scale.

 

[acbytesla]

We only need an element of pure randomness and the rest can be pure laws of physics. Remember the butterfly effect?

Precisely.

 

[Pixel42]

Events have to have a cause.

Not according to the laws of quantum mechanics. Radioactive decay, for example. Nothing happens to the atom in a lump of uranium which emits an alpha particle which doesn't happen to the ones that don't.

 

[psionl0]

Not according to the laws of quantum mechanics. Radioactive decay, for example. Nothing happens to the atom in a lump of uranium which emits an alpha particle which doesn't happen to the ones that don't.

Nobody said that the cause has to be external.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nobody said that the cause has to be external.

what's the cause (internal or external) of a specific nuclear decay?

 

[psionl0]

what's the cause (internal or external) of a specific nuclear decay?

Nuclear fission - Atomic Reactions, Energy Release, Chain Reactions | Britannica

Nuclear fission - Atomic Reactions, Energy Release, Chain Reactions: The fission process may be best understood through a consideration of the structure and stability of nuclear matter. Nuclei consist of nucleons (neutrons and protons), the total number of which is equal to the mass number of...

www.britannica.com

 

[arthwollipot]

What do you expect me to say? That God is pushing and pulling things around?

No, but I do expect you to be able to define the terms you use.

Events have to have a cause. If you don't like the word "force" then use a different word but don't act as if you have sprung a trap on me.

Cause and force are different though. They have different meanings. If you meant "cause" then that's fine.

We only need an element of pure randomness and the rest can be pure laws of physics. Remember the butterfly effect?

Can you point out such an element? Can you point out why such an element is not just pure laws of physics? The butterfly effect is, after all, not pure randomness.

 

[psionl0]

Can you point out such an element? Can you point out why such an element is not just pure laws of physics? The butterfly effect is, after all, not pure randomness.

Of course not. I don't even know if true randomness actually exists. I am only considering the consequences if it does exist and if it doesn't exist.

All I can say is that if true randomness exists then one of the consequences could be to affect to some extent the forces that exist between different pieces of matter (hence the term "random forces").

 

[arthwollipot]

The forces that exist between different pieces of matter are very well understood, and they are not random either.

But I can sense that I'm getting needlessly pedantic, so I'll stop now, before I start pointing out the difference between "random" and "stochastic".

 

[psionl0]

The forces that exist between different pieces of matter are very well understood, and they are not random either.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nuclear fission - Atomic Reactions, Energy Release, Chain Reactions | Britannica

Nuclear fission - Atomic Reactions, Energy Release, Chain Reactions: The fission process may be best understood through a consideration of the structure and stability of nuclear matter. Nuclei consist of nucleons (neutrons and protons), the total number of which is equal to the mass number of...

www.britannica.com

that's a Statistically argument, which does not apply to an individual decay.
What is the Cause of a single decay?

 

[psionl0]

that's a Statistically argument, which does not apply to an individual decay.
What is the Cause of a single decay?

Did you seriously believe that we could observe a single atomic nucleus and see what is happening down there?

 

[acbytesla]

Did you seriously believe that we could observe a single atomic nucleus and see what is happening down there?

We can't. But that doesn't mean it's not determistic. Radioactive decay is quite predictable. We just can't determine if any individual atom will decay.

 

[psionl0]

We can't. But that doesn't mean it's not determistic. Radioactive decay is statistically quite predictable. We just can't determine if any individual atom will decay.

ftfy. Otherwise you would have two contradictory sentences.