if you ask "how did the universe came to be?", atheists reply "it's just a fluke". — Agent Smith

A creator is merely a personification of "a fluke", no? And Occan's Razor reminds us that we can do without the added personification (à la Laplace).

Otherwise, the universe might not have "come to be" at all but rather eternally transforms (e.g. A. Guth) from one 'configuration of physical constants' into another (e.g. R. Penrose's 'conformal cyclic universes') whereby, occasionally, sentient metacognitive agents evolve and interpret their universes in perspectival terms (e.g. a personified fluke aka "creator").

When asked, Smith, the most reasonable answer, it seems to me, is "All that we know is that the observable universe is here and that we can only measure the age of its currently observable state to be about 13.81 billion years old; that's all we know so far, anything else today – chance or creator – is fiction." Now as for the fiction I prefer when I'm in more speculative mood, it's akin to pandeism – there is no creator because it suicidally (by chance?) blew itself up and the debris became (by chance?) the universe. Works for me without being inconsistent with any of the most precisely known physical facts.

if you ask "how did the universe came to be?", atheists reply "it's just a fluke". — Agent Smith

This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level.

ill-formed (@Banno's pet peeve) — Agent Smith

Ill formed is anther way of saying it's the wrong question.

But here your fallacy is black-or-white.

A creator is merely a personification of "a fluke", no? — 180 Proof

The humanity is obsessed with humanized whatever when we don't have to. For me a creator is not necessarily pictured. It could be whatever you believe... If I don't believe in anything there is not a creator at all...
I think flukes don't exist. It is just a reference to whatever happens and we cannot explain the cause.

I think Aristotle says something on this issue in The Physics, after a discussion of the four common senses of "cause". He asks whether chance and luck ought to also be considered causes. I think what he determined was that chance on its own cannot be considered a cause. But when chance occurrences are taken in relation to final cause, the result may be fortune (luck). So in relation to final cause, chance has an effect therefore it must be in some sense causal. For example, a man goes to the market and by chance meets someone who owes him a debt, and he collects the debt. Chance is a cause of his good fortune.

From this we can infer that if we consider "luck" to be something real, then it must have a real cause, and this is "chance".

God has been equated with chance (re Marcus du Sautoy/mathematician). The Greeks had a goddess of luck (Fortuna). However the Greeks never, to my knowledge, equated Fortuna to a creator deity. Why is that? If the link between chance and creation is as obvious as you say it is (god = personification of fluke), why didn't the Greeks make the connection?

To clarify, creation requires a cause and chance can't be a cause (it isn't physical, it's a concept) and while I'm not certain whether whatever the actual cause of the unverse should be called god and worshipped, I don't think chance is adequately explanatory; chance in this case is merely descriptive.

This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level. — T Clark

Are you saying atheists are making facile and untrue statements? Well, go on then, edify us/them as to the true state of affairs.

Ill formed is anther way of saying it's the wrong question.

But here your fallacy is black-or-white. — Banno

So I'm asking the wrong question, eh mate? Do you mean to say that it's nonsensical/incoherent to inquire into a cause for the universe? How so?

As for black-and-white fallacies, what, pray tell, are the other alternatives to god (creator) and chance in re how the universe came to be?

Please read my reply to 180 Proof.

I like 180 Proof's stance on the issue - stick to the facts, reject all claims inconsistent with the facts, speculate at your own risk! Construct a weltanschauung as free of woo-woo as possible. Alas, easier said than done!

I like 180 Proof's stance on the issue - stick to the facts, reject all claims inconsistent with the facts, speculate at your own risk! Construct a weltanschauung as free of woo-woo as possible. Alas, easier said than done! — Agent Smith

It's difficult, mi amigo, only to the degree one lacks scientific and historical literacies, applied numeracy, intellectual integrity (i.e. humility to admit "I/we don't know") and, last but not least (as per Einstein), imagination. :fire:

It's difficult, mi amigo, only to the degree one lacks scientific and historical literacies, applied numeracy, intellectual integrity (i.e. humility to admit "I/we don't know") and, last but not least (as per Einstein), imagination. :fire: — 180 Proof

:cool:

This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level.
— T Clark

Are you saying atheists are making facile and untrue statements? Well, go on then, edify us/them as to the true state of affairs. — Agent Smith

No, I'm saying that atheists in general would not say that because it's not true and shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works.

if you ask "how did the universe came to be?", atheists reply "it's just a fluke". — Agent Smith

As an atheist, my answer would be 'I don't know' and then I would give my credence level for each currently popular posit such as:
god - 0.00000001% credence
Big bang singularity - very high credence but I don't understand what a singularity is.
Cyclical singularity states - high credence but I don't understand what a singularity is.
Interacting inter-dimensional branes which create singularities when they collide - respectable credence but I don't understand what a brane or a singularity is.

The idea of cause as being chance would imply no direct line of action and consequences. It is questionable whether the idea of chance is more a reflection of theism or atheism because some theists have believed in predestination and some atheists have maintained materialistic determinism.

Darwin's idea of natural selection in itself is not random entirely because the survival of the fittest is like an inherent biological imperative within nature. And, in connection with God, Darwin was not necessarily an atheist even though his ideas may have influenced others to become atheist.

It is hard to know how to see the specific roots of causation. Aristotle saw God as the first mover. However, it would also be possible to ask what caused God to exist in the first place? To some extent it may come down to whether mind or matter are primary. Many Eastern thinkers, especially the Buddhists, see causality a little differently because they don't see the material as being the primary force, even though they don't believe in a specific deity. In Hinduism and Buddhism there is the idea of karma, which is fairly complex involving both inner and outer sources of causation, although the idea is, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' which would imply chain reactions as opposed to chance.

No, I'm saying that atheists in general would not say that because it's not true and shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works — T Clark

Ok, does that mean you concur (with what I said)? Why?

"I don't know" is a legit answer. @Harry Hindu once edified me as to what probability actually is - (the mathematics of) ignorance



Yup, theism and atheism converge (but also diverge) when it comes to determinism. :up:

Genetic mutations are random, at the very least probabilistic, to the extent the correlation between them and mutagen exposure < 1. Someone (@jgill ?) could shed more light on the matter.

Karma, an intriguing concept.

The human spirit is abjectly in opposition to fluke, unless life can happen any time, anywhere.

Good luck to those who insist our whole realities are a fluke, less than nothing.

I shouldn't be against the ropes in proposing fucking life isn't a fluke.

There is no evidence of intent from any source other than lifeforms.
There is no evidence that the origins of life, had a source with intent.
There is no evidence from big bang theory, that any event in this universe was intended, before life started, or when life started. Intent only began after creatures who could be labelled 'alive,' started.

The characteristics of living things are: Movement, respiration, sense, growth, reproduction, energy and nutrition. You need to have all of them to be considered alive.

Only living things demonstrate intent.

There is no evidence of intent in any origin of the universe story proposed by science.
Only theism proposes a source of intent in the form of god proposals and there is no evidence that any god posit has an actual existent. Theism simply fails to convince anyone who employs rational faculty, in my opinion.

Chance/happenstance exists within this universe. But we just don't know if there is any point in asking a 'why' question about the origin of the universe. We may get closer to answering the 'how' and 'when' questions but 'why' and 'where' may never be known, but, the likelihood that we will probably always try to answer such a 'why' question, may have a deeper meaning than we currently understand.

Otherwise, the universe might not have "come to be" at all but rather eternally transforms (e.g. A. Guth) from one 'configuration of physical constants' into another (e.g. R. Penrose's 'conformal cyclic universes') whereby, occasionally, sentient metacognitive agents evolve and interpret their universes in perspectival terms (e.g. a personified fluke aka "creator") — 180 Proof

:up: You have a way with words, my friend.

My pet philomathosophy notion is infinite chains of causations having first causes. Beyond that, at each link the chain is joined or influenced by neighboring chains. As for chance being a first cause in any such complex of chains, it depends upon your mathematical model, like it does in quantum theory. More later perhaps, when I've thought this out better. (not easy at my age) :cool:

:up: :up:

... the universe might not have "come to be" at all but rather eternally transforms (e.g. A. Guth) from one 'configuration of physical constants' into another (e.g. R. Penrose's 'conformal cyclic universes') whereby, occasionally, sentient metacognitive agents evolve and interpret their universes in perspectival terms (e.g. a personified fluke aka "creator").

When asked, Smith, the most reasonable answer, it seems to me, is "All that we know is that the observable universe is here and that we can only measure the age of its currently observable state to be about 13.81 billion years old; that's all we know so far, anything else today – chance or creator – is fiction." — 180 Proof

:100: :fire:



I think 180 cut to the heart of it; asking what caused the creation, beginning, or origin of the universe when we have not actually established that there ever was a creation, beginning, or origin of the universe is putting the cart before the horse (all we know with any confidence is that the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state some 13.8 billion years ago- what, if anything, preceded that is not known or understood).

And of course its fun to speculate and imagine, beyond what can currently be established, just so long as we're clear that's what we're doing

So I'm asking the wrong question, eh mate? — Agent Smith

No, that's not what i claimed.

As for black-and-white fallacies, what, pray tell, are the other alternatives to god (creator) and chance in re how the universe came to be? — Agent Smith

Evolution.

It is an error to think evolution involves chance.

It is an error to think evolution involves chance. — Banno

Evolution: A Game of Chance

(...that's not the actual name of the article...)

Evolution: A Game of Chance Observations :smile:

:grin:

Good article.

The emphasis on chance comes about when one tries explaining that evolution is not teleological. That gets twisted to the idea that evolution is nothing but chance.

The emphasis on chance comes about when one tries explaining that evolution is not teleological. That gets twisted to the idea that evolution is nothing but chance. — Banno

:up:

And of course its fun to speculate and imagine, beyond what can currently be established, just so long as we're clear that's what we're doing — busycuttingcrap

:up:

No, that's not what i claimed.

As for black-and-white fallacies, what, pray tell, are the other alternatives to god (creator) and chance in re how the universe came to be?
— Agent Smith

Evolution.

It is an error to think evolution involves chance — Banno

So, you can predict evolution's selection pressure parameters and the mutagen-mutation correlation is +1? Can you explain ... please?

I think 180 cut to the heart of it; asking what caused the creation, beginning, or origin of the universe when we have not actually established that there ever was a creation, beginning, or origin of the universe is putting the cart before the horse (all we know with any confidence is that the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state some 13.8 billion years ago- what, if anything, preceded that is not known or understood).

And of course its fun to speculate and imagine, beyond what can currently be established, just so long as we're clear that's what we're doing — busycuttingcrap

:up: The point is I've heard people say the universe coming into existence is a fluke and that is as much of an explanation as saying the Putin was born by chance; no, Putin was born because his mom and dad made love.

Do you have an argument? I would like to hear it, danke.


To reiterate, Putin's mom and dad met by chance, but the cause of his existence was mom + dad (in bed). @Jack Cummins, predestination)

I'm not trying to surreptitiously push for theism (@Gnomon); it's just that chance simply can't be a cause (read my reply to neospectraltoast and busycuttingcrap).

@jgill Thanks for the link. What do you make of my Putin example. Does it capture the role of chance in evolution and how it isn't a cause?

Good article.

The emphasis on chance comes about when one tries explaining that evolution is not teleological. That gets twisted to the idea that evolution is nothing but chance. — Banno

That's what I've been trying to say all along. WTF?

That's what I've been trying to say all along. WTF? — Agent Smith

Yeah, alright,

It is an error to think evolution involves chance. — Banno

was too strong; should have been more like "It is an error to think evolution is nothing but chance".

Your argument about Putin's mother and father in bed is part of the idea of predestination. With the act of reproduction it involves the genetic elements and how this comes into play in the creation of a unique biological being. However, it goes way beyond this, with the circumstances in which they met.

When two people come into a relationship it involves the chance aspects of them meeting. For example, I know people who have met a partner in some unusual place, like a launderette or a couple I know met when the girl was running and the boy came to her rescue. So, it can include the unlikely aspects of life and probability.

On an experiential level I sometimes find that what happens goes beyond the scope of probability. For example, I often find that I get stuck in situations in which whatever I do I land up in the same predicament. I am not saying that there is no possible movement ever but when people have repeated experiences of a similar nature it can challenge the idea of chance and randomness. Nevertheless, it could be that the subconscious plays a role in the process and, in this way, intention in its deepest sense may have some role in the nature of will and chance in human consciousness in our lives, and it may be a bit different in nature and physics.

That's what I've been trying to say all along. WTF?
— Agent Smith

Yeah, alright,
It is an error to think evolution involves chance.
— Banno
was too strong; should have been more like "It is an error to think evolution is nothing but chance". — Banno

:grin: The article is quite clear - genetic mutations are random. However mutations have specific causes - mutagens. Chance is not the cause of mutations (the existence of the universe).

On a different note, selection pressures are random; can you predict what the next selection pressure for life on earth will be? If you can't, evolution is all chance.

Predestination - what criteria do we lay down for it? Does it mean chance, no such thing?

Random (stochastic) events are unpredictable but unpredictable events are not necessarily (or usually) random. Events can have effects. "Chance" is a property of some events. On occasion, chance events cause effects (e.g. stochastic processes).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz1n0RHwLqA

Here's a video on simple versus complex and its relationship with order versus chaos.