RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Philip]

If God knows the future, precisely, and as He tells us that future will end PRECISELY as He so desires, and in the exact manner He desires, and WHEN He desires, and if He has always known exactly the events His prophets have prophesied, then ULTIMATELY, what appears random to US, is by no means random to God, as the randomness of all things have parameters that A) will not go beyond God's boundaries and purposes for them, and B) the ultimate conclusions to all things, the earth and mankind's history have forever been known to Him, and C) He tells us that He controls and guides history, whether at times directly or indirectly intervening - yet, WHILE MEN STILL HAVE THEIR FREE WILL. How is that possible? Because our free will is subservient to the ultimate will, directions and purposes of God. This is what He tells us in Scripture. One either believes this, or they do not. If they don't, they also reject what even Jesus has revealed to us in Scripture. God is in control of ALL things, knows all things. He is either omnipotent or not. He is either sovereign or He is not. There is no in-between to these things.

[Jac3510]

I don't think you need to raise the sovereignty v free will debate here, phil. The epistemological question of God's knowledge of future events has no bearing on the ontological question of whether those same events were deterministic or random in nature. Grant for the sake of argument that true randomness exists and picture any random event coming to pass as you choose. Now assume you recorded that event. You did not know what would happen, and after watchign the video, you did. Now, having watched the video and knowing the outcome, you proceed to watch it again. This time, you know what will happen.

The video records a random event, and yet you know with absolute, experiential certainty what the outcome will be. Does your knowledge of the outcome mean it suddenly wasn't random after all? Of course not. You just knew the outcome of a random event. That's all. And so with God.

[Kurieuo]

God doesn't have to actively prevent any of those things. He can just know they aren't going to happen on any timescale relevant to His plan. While I grant with neo that we ought to accept randomness as a fundmental aspect of reality (so my arguments elsewhere about nature as fundamentally indeterministic), I don't think we should confuse that with history not having a goal. Let's not confuse the method by which God created--by it direct creationism in any of its forms (YEC, theistic evolution, or something else)--with the more fundamental theological point of God's direction of history. And, contrary to neo's point, not just human history, but history itself, the history of all things. The Bible is not ignorant of the very low place humans have in the vastness of creation. Far from it, the Bible takes that small place and makes it the height of irony that it is the drama of human history that will so fundamentally shape the history--yet to unfold!--of all the rest. That's part of what makes the Incarnation so special, a fitting observation given the season we are now celebrating.

The question is, to bare philosophy upon the topic of randomness, how is true randomness had?

Even when computers randomise, they use algorithms and normally parse through such routines based upon time. Such that, we're merely running sophisticated calculations to produce a random number. And, calculations can be weighted, which casinos and those who provide means for people to gamble would love to do.

So then, I think an important question is that is rarely asked, is if a true randomness exists, then how can it be possible?

[Audie]

God doesn't have to actively prevent any of those things. He can just know they aren't going to happen on any timescale relevant to His plan. While I grant with neo that we ought to accept randomness as a fundmental aspect of reality (so my arguments elsewhere about nature as fundamentally indeterministic), I don't think we should confuse that with history not having a goal. Let's not confuse the method by which God created--by it direct creationism in any of its forms (YEC, theistic evolution, or something else)--with the more fundamental theological point of God's direction of history. And, contrary to neo's point, not just human history, but history itself, the history of all things. The Bible is not ignorant of the very low place humans have in the vastness of creation. Far from it, the Bible takes that small place and makes it the height of irony that it is the drama of human history that will so fundamentally shape the history--yet to unfold!--of all the rest. That's part of what makes the Incarnation so special, a fitting observation given the season we are now celebrating.

You and I sure do not think alike.

[RickD]

God doesn't have to actively prevent any of those things. He can just know they aren't going to happen on any timescale relevant to His plan. While I grant with neo that we ought to accept randomness as a fundmental aspect of reality (so my arguments elsewhere about nature as fundamentally indeterministic), I don't think we should confuse that with history not having a goal. Let's not confuse the method by which God created--by it direct creationism in any of its forms (YEC, theistic evolution, or something else)--with the more fundamental theological point of God's direction of history. And, contrary to neo's point, not just human history, but history itself, the history of all things. The Bible is not ignorant of the very low place humans have in the vastness of creation. Far from it, the Bible takes that small place and makes it the height of irony that it is the drama of human history that will so fundamentally shape the history--yet to unfold!--of all the rest. That's part of what makes the Incarnation so special, a fitting observation given the season we are now celebrating.

You and I sure do not think alike.

Don't worry Audie, there's still hope for you.

[Jac3510]

The question is, to bare philosophy upon the topic of randomness, how is true randomness had?

Even when computers randomise, they use algorithms and normally parse through such routines based upon time. Such that, we're merely running sophisticated calculations to produce a random number. And, calculations can be weighted, which casinos and those who provide means for people to gamble would love to do.

So then, I think an important question is that is rarely asked, is if a true randomness exists, then how can it be possible?

I'd refer you to my comments in this thread here. As far as what randomness actually is, it is when a cause is not predetermined to an effect; or put differently, when some potency is not necessarily and always actualized from any given (set of) circumstance(s). It is simply a fundamental aspect of reality that some potencies are "weighted" to be more or less likely actualized from any given (set of) circumstance(s). To deny this is to lead to absolute determinism.

And I don't know, but I think true randomness might very well be possible in computers. You certainly can't do it with calculations alone. You can allow variability, but somewhere down the line of calculations you have to define the variable so that your final output is a real number and not a range, and that determination would undermine any randomness you can actually get. That's just a long-winded way of saying that math is essentially deductive, and you can't get randomness from deduction. But it seems to me that if you could construct a quantum based computer that at some point in the complex algorithm measures the location of a quantum particle, you would get true randomness, and that because of the uncertainty principle. The determining factor is itself fundamentally random, and so the final output is really random.

[Kurieuo]

Yes, quantum principle. I think true randomness is a similar problem to "free will". That a purely mechanistic framework, it seems to me, cannot really support true randomness. For is we had the knowledge and to calculate all factors, then we could determine one outcome which otherwise appears random given our inability to know and calculate all factors. For something to be truly random, I see that the outcome must not be determinable via any possible calculation.

The uncertainty principle is, it seems, is influenced by observer. So then, so long as we don't reduce ourselves down to chemicals and particles, such for me as I see matters may not be purely mechanistic and so there is a possibility to have something truly random.

I'm not denying true randomness exists, but do think such (like free will) is incompatible with a world built upon only physicalism. For similar reasons Audacity and the likes of Sam Harris hold to determinism (which we both evidently reject). I'm just identifying "true randomness" as a similar issue to that of "free will".

[Jac3510]

I don't see any reason to think that the uncertainty principle is only an epistemological problem and not a real ontological description. I don't think that's a common sense view or even accurate. I mean, consider the second premise of the KCA. What evidence does anyone have to suggest that the universe did not, in fact, come to existence? None. In fact, absolutely all of the evidence strongly suggests the alternative. So for someone to take the nonsensical view says a lot more about them than the evidence. And so it is here. You have absolutely zero evidence that the uncertainty principle is merely a calculation problem. Moreover, it seems to me you are literally arguing that everything has a cause. That is, you are saying that in a final and complete analysis, there is no such thing as indeterminacy, that all causes are necessarily related to their effects. As I've said elsewhere, that's just wrong. It's an outmoded idea. It's shallow Newtonianism, which wasn't even a good idea in its own day. And after all, that, if you want to be consistent, you have to flush free will, too. I'd suggest taking the classical view that indeterminacy is actual the basic aspect of reality and that things only become more and more deterministic as they join together in larger and so more predictable structures (insofar as every addition limits the potencies of any given particle so that the total conglomerate has a highly predictable set of potencies which we read to be deterministic).

[Philip]

This kind of topic is basically red meat to Jac, LOL. And to K as well. And then I get a headache when Jac goes on a philosophical tangent, haha.

There is randomness, true, but only within God's will - and that is my point. And random things all have limits as to their possibilities and capabilities - which are never unlimited, and whose boundaries He has set. God didn't create a universe that could surprise Him. And He knows were He has established limits and hard parameters, even though we may not see them, understand them, or even be aware of them. And those parameters all flow from His will. If there were no parameters to a thing or process, then that would mean that finite thing has infinite possibilities. Randomness is merely variability that is constantly changing within parameters that are, to us, perhaps known or unknown, yet in having no particular sequence within those parameters.

[neo-x]

I'm pretty sure God is never surprised, what I meant earlier was that we could very well be.

[abelcainsbrother]

Even if there is randomness,it still has a cause. As for our world all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.Even randomness applies. You cannot pick anything in our world and remove it from these four points,once you do? You step out of reality and into LA LA Land because they apply to everything in our world.

[Nicki]

I'm pretty sure God is never surprised, what I meant earlier was that we could very well be.

The others have replied pretty well, but I didn't say those catastrophes couldn't happen; I meant they won't if they're not part of God's plan for the universe, and going by the Bible it seems unlikely that they are. So don't worry too much. If you trust in Jesus (or for the OSASers, if you have ever trusted in him), God says you're saved and he's got good plans for you, comets or no comets.

[neo-x]

I'm pretty sure God is never surprised, what I meant earlier was that we could very well be.

The others have replied pretty well, but I didn't say those catastrophes couldn't happen; I meant they won't if they're not part of God's plan for the universe, and going by the Bible it seems unlikely that they are. So don't worry too much. If you trust in Jesus (or for the OSASers, if you have ever trusted in him), God says you're saved and he's got good plans for you, comets or no comets.

I am not at all concerned for salvation. That is another topic entirely. I only remarked that these things, some of them, have already happened. I don't judge them by the Bible because the bible is mostly silent on these things, yet they happen. So it may be just a sincere belief that they won't be happening again but it's just that. There is no solid reason to say that they may not happen.

[Nicki]

I'm pretty sure God is never surprised, what I meant earlier was that we could very well be.

The others have replied pretty well, but I didn't say those catastrophes couldn't happen; I meant they won't if they're not part of God's plan for the universe, and going by the Bible it seems unlikely that they are. So don't worry too much. If you trust in Jesus (or for the OSASers, if you have ever trusted in him), God says you're saved and he's got good plans for you, comets or no comets.

I am not at all concerned for salvation. That is another topic entirely. I only remarked that these things, some of them, have already happened. I don't judge them by the Bible because the bible is mostly silent on these things, yet they happen. So it may be just a sincere belief that they won't be happening again but it's just that. There is no solid reason to say that they may not happen.

They haven't happened to (or affecting) the earth though; not while there have been people on it anyway. Something may or may not happen to the earth but I think God will be in control either way.

[neo-x]

I'm pretty sure God is never surprised, what I meant earlier was that we could very well be.

The others have replied pretty well, but I didn't say those catastrophes couldn't happen; I meant they won't if they're not part of God's plan for the universe, and going by the Bible it seems unlikely that they are. So don't worry too much. If you trust in Jesus (or for the OSASers, if you have ever trusted in him), God says you're saved and he's got good plans for you, comets or no comets.

I am not at all concerned for salvation. That is another topic entirely. I only remarked that these things, some of them, have already happened. I don't judge them by the Bible because the bible is mostly silent on these things, yet they happen. So it may be just a sincere belief that they won't be happening again but it's just that. There is no solid reason to say that they may not happen.

They haven't happened to (or affecting) the earth though; not while there have been people on it anyway. Something may or may not happen to the earth but I think God will be in control either way.

It's the same misplaced notion that a church should not fall down upon a body of worshipping believers...but it does...plenty of times.

Do you think God was in control? why do you say so?

And if not then why have this notion of safety in the first place?

Nikki, I understand what you are saying but to me, it's just misplaced or misguided hope.