Randomness is the rule.

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
Randomness is the rule.

Over and over on this forum christians have declared that the universe has an order, is without chaos, everything has a purpose, and that that proves that intelligent design.
I put it to you christians that the universe and everything in it points to total randomness.
If the Earth were designed by something intelligent, there would be no tornadoes, no hurricanes, no wild weather conditions, we could drink salt water or the oceans would be made of fresh water. Nothing would go extinct. Diseases would not exist. Meteors would not smash into this planet. Our orbit around the sun would be a perfect circle instead of elliptical making each day the same. The stars would not be moving away from us, they would be fixed in space.
Every aspect of everything is totally random and chaotic by its origin. The flu wouldn't mutate. Things would not evolve. Every living thing that has ever existed on earth wouldn't share a common DNA ancestor.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

LogicFTW's picture
I always wonder what goes

I always wonder what goes through theist people's mind when they realize themselves and all the people they know around them are about to die. Do they begin to have doubt in their god and their path to the afterlife? What if they learned everyone was about to die, before they died? Do they think "judgement day!" I will be hopefully saved! Or once any potential pain and panic sets in, do they think, "Where is my god? Why am I suffering right now? Why are my children suffering?" Why is my obviously innocent baby suffering?"

mickron88's picture
how about down syndrome?

how about down syndrome??people who has mental illnesses, autistic, etc...

and how ignorant it is to think that your son/daughter is suffering from down syndrome and yet you still thanking god for no fucking reason..

thank you god for giving me a down syndrome baby...i'm blessed cause i'll see my baby suffering from it...thank you for the trials god...its not good but i'm still thankful...

(*face palm*)what the.....

Sky Pilot's picture
Qu@si,

Qu@si,

"and how ignorant it is to think that your son/daughter is suffering from down syndrome and yet you still thanking god for no fucking reason.."

If there was a real legitimate God why would everything have to be real instead of a delusion? Wouldn't a God be able to delude people to see how they would react to specific situations instead of causing real people pain and suffering? Isn't that basically what happened to Job?

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (ESV) = "Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,"

MCDennis's picture
you're trying to explain

you're trying to explain things logically to people with a mental illness

Cognostic's picture
You mean the universe isn't

You mean the universe isn't designed? Then how do you explain randomness? God added randomness to the universe, just like fossils to the earth, to test our faith. Burn in hell you heathen.

(Just taking the other side of the argument for a second.)

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "God added

@Cog Re: "God added randomness to the universe..."

Okay, fine. But did he add it randomly in a haphazard manner, or did he add it methodically in a purposely uniform manner? Because the only way to fulfill a Perfect Plan is to carefully control the randomness. If you simply throw randomness out there all willy-nilly without any care or consideration, then how would it be possible to predict what that randomness would do at any given time? Sheesh! Use your brain, man! It's just basic Common Sense 101.

Inexorable's picture
Hey

Hey

Inexorable's picture
Randomness is a term we use

Randomness is a term we use to mask our ignorance. It is not an actual thing. For example If you knew every variable in any given situation then you would be able to predict every outcome. If you knew for example all the variables of the atmosphere, the exact measurement of every force involved when you flip a coin, you’d be able to predict the outcome every time. In this case your “randomness” would no longer be random. Maybe this is to much for you to grasp. You love randomness (ignorance of the facts) because it is the only way to explain your world view.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Walter Rivera - For example

Walter Rivera - For example If you knew every variable in any given situation then you would be able to predict every outcome.

That is a great description of classical mechanics. But we don't live in a classical universe. Randomness is built in at the lowest level; simply by the fact that it is impossible for all the variables you mentioned to have definite values. It has nothing to do with our ignorance; that information you are discussing does not exist. In fact it isn't even possible to make a model consistent with the known laws which has the property you describe.

Tin-Man's picture
@Walter Re: "Randomness is

@Walter Re: "Randomness is a term we use to mask our ignorance.... Maybe this is to much for you to grasp..... You love randomness..."

Oh, thank you for your bounty of wisdom, O Wise One! *bowing repeatedly* My love of randomness has definitely led me astray! Because of you I now see the Light! Now I shall denounce all the randomness in my life and forever walk the Path of Predictability! Hallelujah, hallelujah! I've been saved! Praise Walter!

*chuckle* I have to say I am actually tickled you are hanging around. Sir Walter. Should prove to be fun. Ever since our buddy FIG had to be ousted into the Netherworld, there has been a small void in my AR life that has left me sad and restless. Perhaps you can be our new and improved FIG, and I can once again find joy and purpose in my life. *smooch*

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tin Man

@ Tin Man

*Settles down with popcorn* Hey TM I have choc bomb and popcorn for you. This show should be entertaining!

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

Sweeeeet! I've got the drinks. *grabbing a handful of popcorn*

mickron88's picture
hey scoot over... T-man hand

hey scoot over... T-man hand over the popcorn..

what's for today??

ahhh..another relentless pass-byre who's obviously arrogant like his master...
hahahhahha....

sweeettt...indeed

Tin-Man's picture
@Q

@Q

Hey, stop hogging the whole couch! And pass me a choco bomb. *nom-nom-nom* Hope this Walter guy hangs around awhile. It just hasn't been the same around here since FIG left.

*passing a drink* Here, try this Red Bull with a Five Hour energy shot mixed in with it. It's awesome! *eyes wide, hair standing on end, teeth chattering, body shaking*

Inexorable's picture
So describe randomness for us

So describe randomness for us. What is it? How does it work. What are it’s propeties?

Inexorable's picture
In effect, randomness is an

In effect, randomness is an unobservable property of a generating process. Theory can assume this property, but in practice it can only be inferred indirectly, from properties of the generator’s output. The inspec- tion of outputs for “randomness” involves subjecting them to various statistical tests of these necessary, but not sufficient, properties. The conclusions based on these tests are thus inherently statistical in nature-there are no logical or physical proofs of randomness.
*
MAYA BAR-HILLEL
Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University
WILLEM A. WAGENAAR
Department of Psychology, University of Leiden,

Inexorable's picture
Reason we have to go to

Reason we have to go to psychology on this matter, is because “randomness” has to do with your perception of things not the reality of them. If you were the ultimate perciever you would not call anything random because everything would have a rhym and reason. As you shed your ignorance there is less and less chance for you to call Anything, “random”. Get it??

CyberLN's picture
Walter, you wrote, “As you

Walter, you wrote, “As you shed your ignorance there is less and less chance for you to call Anything, “random”. Get it??”

Words are flexible. No one is the final arbiter of how a word is used and all nuances of its meaning.

Consider that the word random may be, in some cases, used to mean there is no directed purpose. In that case, I think it isn’t only about perception as you’ve said.

Inexorable's picture
No directed purpose? From who

No directed purpose? From who’s perspective? What is purpose to you? You mean reason? Again only way to call it random is if you are clueless about the variables dude. There is always a reason of why things happen. Have you ever heard of the law of inertia? Find out what the force is that moved the object and you will find out the reason the thing moved. If you can’t find that out, then just throw up the word “random” and you go scot free. Smh!!! Really? That’s how you atheist think? Ignorance of the facts does not give you a pass even if you call it “randomness”.

Inexorable's picture
Simple. Look into the law of

Simple. Look into the law of cause and effect. Just because you don’t know the cause doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It is called a law for a reason, and you can’t break it, simply because you’re ignorant.

Jared Alesi's picture
You're committing an

You're committing an equivocation fallacy. Your definition of reason is not the same as the previously used definition. You're using reason as a synonym of cause, but we're using it as a synonym of purpose. There's no inherent reason for anything to happen the way it does; the universe simply is. Everything has a cause, but nothing has an inherent purpose. All of the universe is just a byproduct of physics in action, from gravity forming stars and planets to the citric acid cycle creating ATP in the mitochondrion. It's not on purpose. It just happens.

As far as randomness not existing, I would say you are mostly correct. If we knew how to calculate every little factor in the universe, we could know for certain how events turn out in any given scenario. However, this knowledge is impossible to obtain, and the reason why is actually found in physics, as it would happen. By observing something, we automatically change it. When light hits electrons, they shift in energy levels. The atoms that make up the universe are inherently unstable when exposed to light radiation, and shift upon impact.

Imagine you have a coin wedged between your couch cushions such that the seat cushion is pinning it to the back cushion. When you go to retrieve the coin, the couch shifts and the coin falls. You've altered the state of the coin before you even had the chance to observe and retrieve it. It's much the same with hadrons and leptons when we look at them through microscopes.

Inexorable's picture
Well I am glad we agree at

Well I am glad we agree at least on the fact that randomness is an illusion. On your point about semantics, I was just trying to get clarification on the definition of the terms being used here. I am well aware of the difference from my perspective, Hence the reason for possing it as a question. Precisely to try to prevent equivocation. On the last point, since you are so certain that things change with observation, let me ask you this. How do we things change when we observe them?

Jared Alesi's picture
That's the issue; we don't

That's the issue; we don't know how they changed because we're not privy to the information from before the observation. We can't know where or how something was before observation because it hasn't been observed.

So for example, you have a subatomic particle. This particle is immersed in absolute darkness, with a microscope trained on its position. The room is contained, and all factors of radiation and environmental chaos have been cancelled out of the equation. You turn the lights on to observe the particle. As soon as the first photon hits the subatomic particle, it moves. We have no idea where its starting position was, only where it ended up. We have no idea where it will go and at what trajectory, because we couldn't see the departure to measure it's average velocity. Instantaneous velocity is impossible to calculate for a particle that has no equation. So, we can't calculate any of those minute factors that would determine the path of this one particle, let alone a possibly infinite amount of them.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The basis for quite a lot of our modern understanding of quantum mechanics. So, because this knowledge is unknowable, we call it random. Perhaps this is erroneous, but the term is just a placeholder. The universe is ordered and governed by physics, but not in the traditional sense of the words. The OP seemed to use ordered to mean purposeful, and random to mean without purpose. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Inexorable's picture
A few comments on this. First

A few comments on this. First of all how do you know the thing wasn’t moving before you began to observe it? I am not a physicist, but I am a rational thinker and as such I demand answers to obvious questions. It is ludicrous to believe that we will never be able to attain this knowledge. To throw up the hands in defete and call it randomness is intelectual suicide, which is worse than what atheistic accusation of Christians of using the God of the gaps hypothesis. Again I repeat, on the basis of this, that “randomness” is a cop out. When you read the original comments in this chat, in the light of this, you will see they are nonsensical and irrational. To put it bluntly, to say there is no God on the basis of randomness is unsophisticated and ridiculously naive!

Jared Alesi's picture
Whether the particle was

Whether the particle was moving is inconsequential, no? That doesn't affect our predicament, being as a moving particle and a still particle are equally impossible to track with respect to both position and velocity. This is a proven concept of physics, simple as that.

To address your last point, we're not asserting that there is no god because randomness exists. That was never said. It was stated that randomness would be improbable as an element created by an omniscient being, but not as a proof against it.

Inexorable's picture
Btw my question is if you can

Btw my question is if you can’t observe where the sub atomic particle is, how can you train a microscope on it. (Just clarifying after I reread my post)

LogicFTW's picture
It has been said if you knew

It has been said if you knew the exact position of every electron(s) around every atom in the universe, an knew exactly how each electron would react in a given situation you could accurately predict what is going to happen next. The "next" of course being a tiny fraction of a second later.

Of course that is impossible to do for multiple reasons. One we humans are nowhere near being able to find out where the electrons are rotating around an atom at any given moment. Electrons are too small and moving too fast, (at that scale,) for us to track 1 electron, let alone every electron in the universe. Two, to compute and track every electron position in the universe would require equipment that would take many multiples more atoms and electrons available in the universe to calculate. Plus a whole bunch more major show stopping issues that probably cannot be solved. All to only know what will happen in the next instant, which is useless information as that instant will have long passed before we could make use of the information.

Really the argument here is what do you consider the definition of random to be. When we get to the super fine minute details of it, a solid argument could be made from both sides, that everything is random or nothing is. Be happy that your brain can detect large consistent patterns and predict likely future events from that. If you touch a hot stove you are likely to get burned, etc

Another way to look at it, without the tools and ability to measure things, just about everything is random in the fine details. yes if you had the tools and all the variables you could accurately predict a dice roll on a craps game at Las Vegas, but without those tools it is better to simply assume it is "random."

Inexorable's picture
You make my point.

You make my point. “Randomness” is a word to say that we are ignorant of certain things. It is idiotic to use it as a “thing” when in fact it is No “thing”. Specially to use a “No Thing” to try to debunk the existence of God. This is my point all along. Thank you for helping me make it.

Tin-Man's picture
Hey, Walter, if I may offer a

Hey, Walter, if I may offer a word of advice. These threads can get a little jumbled sometimes. So for the sake of clarity, you might want to specify who you are addressing at the top of your post. Otherwise, keep up the good work. You're doing wonderfully.

Inexorable's picture
Thank you Tin Man. Very kind

Thank you Tin Man. Very kind of you, I thought the posts were sequential but I will keep that in mind. Thanks again

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.