Is Evolution random or non-random

[Immanuel Can]

So are you intending to mean that your further statements in your previous post after the words "not necessarily" form a logically sound and valid argument? Or are you agreeing that we agree to disagree with each other?

I'm saying that what you're suggesting is not really doing philosophy at all. Philosophy always looks for reasons, for warrant, for justification, for coherence, for consistency, for evidence, and so on. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-Theistic evolutionary theories should be taken seriously without any of that. And I'm just saying that that sort of "pass" is not something a philosopher should give.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree because if you think questioning unproven assumptions isn't "doing philosophy," then we have different conceptions of philosophy.

I said the opposite. I said that leaving non-Theism unexamined was unwarranted. Did you read it?

[Gary Childress]

I'm saying that what you're suggesting is not really doing philosophy at all. Philosophy always looks for reasons, for warrant, for justification, for coherence, for consistency, for evidence, and so on. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-Theistic evolutionary theories should be taken seriously without any of that. And I'm just saying that that sort of "pass" is not something a philosopher should give.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree because if you think questioning unproven assumptions isn't "doing philosophy," then we have different conceptions of philosophy.

I said the opposite. I said that leaving non-Theism unexamined was unwarranted. Did you read it?

Actually, I just saw the "not really doing philosophy at all" part.

So is clinging to theism and denying any possible objections to it "doing philosophy"?

[popeye1945]

This much is predetermined, and that which is predetermined as constants cannot be a random process.

Your belief in that is purely assumptive and unfounded, as well as being self-contradicting, since you're still trying to change our minds by telling us nothing can change, essentially. so we can't regard that argument as carrying any weight at all. It doesn't even make sense.

You need to be less rash and ponder before you try to negate what you read. You have stated that I am trying to tell you that nothing can change, that is bazzar, for change is the only constant in the world. So, directly state what doesn't make sense to you; that is what we are here for. It doesn't take any intellectual energy to be negative consistently; you need to question the logic.

[Immanuel Can]

This much is predetermined, and that which is predetermined as constants cannot be a random process.

Your belief in that is purely assumptive and unfounded, as well as being self-contradicting, since you're still trying to change our minds by telling us nothing can change, essentially. so we can't regard that argument as carrying any weight at all. It doesn't even make sense.

You need to be less rash

Rash? There's nothing "rash" about noticing an obvious self-contradiction. And it wouldn't simply cease to exist if we were less "rash." It's a problem inherent to your view.

[Immanuel Can]

So is clinging to theism and denying any possible objections to it "doing philosophy"?

It would depend. Are those objections logical and rationally-sustainable? Are they historically substantiated and evident in present observations? Are they manifested in 100% of the known cases? The criticism of Socialism are.

[Gary Childress]

So is clinging to theism and denying any possible objections to it "doing philosophy"?

It would depend. Are those objections logical and rationally-sustainable?

Is it "illogical" to think that it may be possible for order and patterns to exist in physics without a sentient "God" individual to create them? Such an idea cannot possibly be true?

[Immanuel Can]

So is clinging to theism and denying any possible objections to it "doing philosophy"?

It would depend. Are those objections logical and rationally-sustainable?

Is it "illogical" to think that it may be possible for order and patterns to exist in physics without a sentient "God" individual to create them? Such an idea cannot possibly be true?

Try chaos. Try pure chance. See what you get.

Here's an experiment. Take a hole-punch. Empty out those thousands of little "dots" of paper onto your hand. Throw them up in the air, and let them come down in ways guided purely by chance and randomness.

How many times will you have to do that, before all the dots fall down into a neat pattern that forms the letters that read, "Gary is amazing"? I think you know the answer. For all intents and purposes, it will NEVER happen. You could stand there for a thousand years, throwing up those dots every few seconds, and the chances that pattern would ever appear would still be practically nil.

That's a very tiny exhibition of the futility of believing in coherent patterns and order to be produced by nothing but chance.

So now, if the dots DID suddenly fall into the pattern of "Gary is amazing," what would be your best hypothesis: that randomness had finally, and against all odds, produced this wildly unlikely coherence and order? Or that somebody had done something to put the fix in? That more than randomness was at work, and some intelligence was toying with you?

I think you can see.

[Gary Childress]

It would depend. Are those objections logical and rationally-sustainable?

Is it "illogical" to think that it may be possible for order and patterns to exist in physics without a sentient "God" individual to create them? Such an idea cannot possibly be true?

Try chaos. Try pure chance. See what you get.

Here's an experiment. Take a hole-punch. Empty out those thousands of little "dots" of paper onto your hand. Throw them up in the air, and let them come down in ways guided purely by chance and randomness.

How many times will you have to do that, before all the dots fall down into a neat pattern that forms the letters that read, "Gary is amazing"? I think you know the answer. For all intents and purposes, it will NEVER happen. You could stand there for a thousand years, throwing up those dots every few seconds, and the chances that pattern would ever appear would still be practically nil.

That's a very tiny exhibition of the futility of believing in coherent patterns and order to be produced by nothing but chance.

So now, if the dots DID suddenly fall into the pattern of "Gary is amazing," what would be your best hypothesis: that randomness had finally, and against all odds, produced this wildly unlikely coherence and order? Or that somebody had done something to put the fix in? That more than randomness was at work, and some intelligence was toying with you?

I think you can see.

What does "pure chance" have to do with the way the universe works? My point is, can a universe working in specific patterns or regularities not exist without a sentient being to create it? Do we know that it cannot be the case?

[Immanuel Can]

Is it "illogical" to think that it may be possible for order and patterns to exist in physics without a sentient "God" individual to create them? Such an idea cannot possibly be true?

Try chaos. Try pure chance. See what you get.

Here's an experiment. Take a hole-punch. Empty out those thousands of little "dots" of paper onto your hand. Throw them up in the air, and let them come down in ways guided purely by chance and randomness.

How many times will you have to do that, before all the dots fall down into a neat pattern that forms the letters that read, "Gary is amazing"? I think you know the answer. For all intents and purposes, it will NEVER happen. You could stand there for a thousand years, throwing up those dots every few seconds, and the chances that pattern would ever appear would still be practically nil.

That's a very tiny exhibition of the futility of believing in coherent patterns and order to be produced by nothing but chance.

So now, if the dots DID suddenly fall into the pattern of "Gary is amazing," what would be your best hypothesis: that randomness had finally, and against all odds, produced this wildly unlikely coherence and order? Or that somebody had done something to put the fix in? That more than randomness was at work, and some intelligence was toying with you?

I think you can see.

What does "pure chance" have to do with the way the universe works?

Well, it's the thing that Evolutionism supposes does all the work. Time, plus chance, equals Gary.

My point is, can a universe working in specific patterns or regularities not exist without a sentient being to create it? Do we know that it cannot be the case?

Hence my test. Go do it, and you'll have the answer to your question.

[Gary Childress]

Time, plus chance, equals Gary.

That is not quite how evolution works, and I think you, of all people, should know that. You're clearly an intelligent person. At least you seem to be at times.

[Immanuel Can]

Time, plus chance, equals Gary.

That is not quite how evolution works,

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. It just doesn't.

[Gary Childress]

Time, plus chance, equals Gary.

That is not quite how evolution works,

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. It just doesn't.

So are you saying evolution is a purely random process that happens in a universe that behaves completely randomly? There are no patterns or "laws" that all matter is constrained by?

Or are you saying that patterns and "laws" can only be created by a sentient being and that if there were no sentient being who created the universe, then there would be no gravity or electro-magnetic force, etc?

[Immanuel Can]

That is not quite how evolution works,

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. It just doesn't.

So are you saying evolution is a purely random process

No. Evolutionists say that.

Or are you saying that patterns and "laws" can only be created by a sentient being and that if there were no sentient being who created the universe, then there would be no gravity or electro-magnetic force, etc?

There's a lot to be said about this, Gary. Let's give you just three of the thousands of parameters necessary for the kind of universe we have. What are the mathematical odds that they would happen by chance, according to master mathematician Roger Penrose?

The Cosmological Constant: Adjusted to 1 part in 10¹²⁰.

The Universe’s Expansion Rate: Tuned to 1 part in 10⁶⁰.

Initial Entropy: Estimated at 1 in \(10^{10^{123}}\).

The odds against any of this happening by chance are literally astronomical. But by design? No reason why not, if a Supreme Being exists.

[Gary Childress]

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. It just doesn't.

So are you saying evolution is a purely random process

No. Evolutionists say that.

Or are you saying that patterns and "laws" can only be created by a sentient being and that if there were no sentient being who created the universe, then there would be no gravity or electro-magnetic force, etc?

There's a lot to be said about this, Gary. Let's give you just three of the thousands of parameters necessary for the kind of universe we have. What are the mathematical odds that they would happen by chance, according to master mathematician Roger Penrose?

The Cosmological Constant: Adjusted to 1 part in 10¹²⁰.

The Universe’s Expansion Rate: Tuned to 1 part in 10⁶⁰.

Initial Entropy: Estimated at 1 in \(10^{10^{123}}\).

The odds against any of this happening by chance are literally astronomical. But by design? No reason why not, if a Supreme Being exists.

Why do you think a universe can only possibly run by pure chance? Clearly, our universe doesn't. Why are we to think that it is necessary for a God to create order? Why can't our universe have come into being (or perhaps existed eternally or whatever) without a sentient being we refer to as "God?" What logical rule dictates that a universe that is not purely random cannot be without a God?

[popeye1945]

Your belief in that is purely assumptive and unfounded, as well as being self-contradicting, since you're still trying to change our minds by telling us nothing can change, essentially. so we can't regard that argument as carrying any weight at all. It doesn't even make sense.

You need to be less rash

Rash? There's nothing "rash" about noticing an obvious self-contradiction. And it wouldn't simply cease to exist if we were less "rash." It's a problem inherent to your view.

Then state the contradiction! Do you think the devil made me do it---lol!!