Truthfully...Do you believe in luck?

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

You don't believe in "pure randomness"? I know a teacher of Chaos Theory (know OF him, not him personally) who would love to sit down with you.

I have debated 'chaotes' numerous times. The conclusion? Chaos theory is not actually about 'pure randomness' but resolves into 'well, we cannot see the mechanisms of cause and effect in certain situations so we call it chaos.'

Been there, done that.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

I have debated 'chaotes' numerous times. The conclusion? Chaos theory is not actually about 'pure randomness' but resolves into 'well, we cannot see the mechanisms of cause and effect in certain situations so we call it chaos.'

Been there, done that.

So..... Just out of curiosity then, if in your opinion, there is no true chaos or randomness, then perhaps life could have sprung from lifelessness? After all, people who say it isn't possible use the idea of chance and "extreme unlikeliness" as reasons that it could not have happened.

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

So..... Just out of curiosity then, if in your opinion, there is no true chaos or randomness, then perhaps life could have sprung from lifelessness? After all, people who say it isn't possible use the idea of chance and "extreme unlikeliness" as reasons that it could not have happened.

True randomness is a denial of cause and effect. Life most certainly could have sprung from lifelessness (abiogenesis), but that doesn't mitigate the need for a cause for life to come about to begin with. For example, God could have said 'let the earth bring forth the green herb' and it would be so - abiogenesis?

But there is still a cause - God's creative act - and thus it wouldn't be 'random'. When people say creation ex nihilo could not be random because the 'chances are so astronomically against it' they are saying that relying on true chance to explain an effect is a chancy proposition.