Is belief in a purely non-deterministic universe compatible with belief in God?

Is belief in a purely non-deterministic universe compatible with belief in God? lf so, what are some potential ramifications of this?

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    God could be a mortal person who just were so powerful compared to us that he could create the universe
    Which is why when christians say god is omnipotent all that they are saying something they can't prove.
    The Universe could be like a computer game to god and god is some fat slop who hasn't left the house and instead sits and players Universe 6 - Galaxy Expansion on his quadrillion ram computer
    Everything is technically possible if you don't require proof or observation
    Which is why in general you have to be borderline moronic to believe in god because literally any concept of "god" can be pulled out of your ass at any moment
    fx I just made this up

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The way I see it, God might be the guy who wrote the code, even if he didn't necessarily have a hand in the creation of assembly language itself, since the assembly language set of instructions might be inherent to any possible universe.
      I'm an atheist, but I think that some stuff, like the rules of logic, are purely transcendent and would still be true in and of themselves even if the universe didn't exist at all.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        our reality or universe could very well be run by "code". The point is are you interacting with that directly? Can you actually see that code?
        Does it have any relevance in your life to believe that our universe is run by code or that some coder made it.
        Just like if you have no interaction with god then what does it even matter if god could theoretically exist

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          We live in that universe and interact with it all right, but what if shit just doesn't work in accordance to our overly simplified deterministic mental model of it? Then it would mean we couldn't rely on a lot of stuff working in accordance to patterns and that unexpected stuff could lead to completely random outcomes. Many people seem to be fine with a bit of uncertainty or randomness in their lives, but believing that nothing follows necessary cause-effect relation chains would make people totally incapable of taking any decisions.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            randomness is relative
            when is something random and when is it order?
            From the point of view of an animal all kind of random things happen that they have no clue why it happens and it would seem completely random to them yet they still make decisions and live their lives
            So do humans. People had no clue why earthquakes or tornados happened and yet they still lived their lives. Ofc they would often (wrongly) say some god did it.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            If the universe were truly random, then not even God could decide what is going to happen.
            When people act by the means of reasoning, and not based on instinct, they must suppose that some stuff will happen based on certain conditions. If placing a flat-base glass vase on the floor could not guarantee that it would stay still and not shatter, then people would not be able to decide what a safe place to put it is. There are some events that can be difficult to predict, like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, but if literally nothing had a fixed outcome, or at least a fixed set of possible outcomes, then I believe nobody would act except by the means of wild guesses.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the guy that you're talking to, but here is how I seem to understand God's role in our world. Some things can truly be random, while others not so much. It is the boundaries that define exactly the limits of this randomness. What does this mean? God might have a certain telos for the course of history, but he might preclude the probability of any potential future in which it is not achieved, which requires direct intervention. This could be from physical manifestations of the divine will down to what numbers are randomly generated on a computer.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >how I seem to understand God's role in our world. Some things can truly be random, while others not so much.

            things can only be truly random if God makes it that way through divine intervention and cosmological suspension of causality

            try and think about how God would play cards with you
            he knows what you have in your hand, he knows the order of every card in the deck

            but he plays as if it truly were random, as if he could only count cards he would know about *in-game*, and as if he didn't know what cards you have

            because if he didn't play as if he weren't omniscent, it would be cheating
            cheating is less perfect than playing fair, while God is just and most perfect

            so yeah
            only God could possibly truly randomize a deck of cards for an ideal game

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >but he plays as if it truly were random, as if he could only count cards he would know about *in-game*, and as if he didn't know what cards you have
            >because if he didn't play as if he weren't omniscent, it would be cheating. cheating is less perfect than playing fair, while God is just and most perfect
            If God were perfect and playing cards with me, he would basically be the Rain Man, i.e. have the capacity to determine the truth about things in the world without having experiential knowledge of them. He would still beat you every time, just because He would know every trick of the game that is not cheating. Any kind of knowledge based on probability and chance can be refined until it becomes certainty. He would not only have to pretend not to have experiential knowledge, but also pretend to have an average human's level of cognitive power and understanding approaching the game.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Rain Man, i.e. have the capacity to determine the truth about things in the world without having experiential knowledge of them

            Rain Man isn't omniscent, or omnipotent.

            He can't know what card is on top of the deck, but he can calculate which card is most likely to be on top perfectly based on the information about every card he has access to *in-game*.

            He can't cheat by looking at your hand or stacking the deck. And the game is typed as "limited information".

            And if you're simply lucky enough, even if you have no skill you could technically win against him. He can't beat you *every* time. But he beats you an ideal number of times.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >When people act by the means of reasoning, and not based on instinct
            this is again nonsense. When is it reasoning and when is it instinct? You can't define it.
            >if literally nothing had a fixed outcome, or at least a fixed set of possible outcomes, then I believe nobody would act except by the means of wild guesses.
            It's RELATIVE. Farmers can't predict the weather yet they still farm knowing that their crops might fail.
            Hunters go out and hunt knowing they can't predict if they will catch something
            What world do you live in??
            ffs people even play the lottery.
            >fixed set of outcomes
            there is no person in the world who can wake up and say "my day will have a fixed set of outcomes"

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no person in the world who can wake up and say "my day will have a fixed set of outcomes"
            Well, no, they don't literally say it, but they assume that they can extend their hands to hold a glass up, or that they can turn off the sink to stop water from coming out of it. Nobody actually has an internal monologue like the writings of a 19th century German idealist philosopher on the cognitive process, but the way their minds process sensory data generally point to the belief in the consistency of phenomena in the universe.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            All those things are relative.
            Can you know for a fact that you wake up and can gold a glass or that your sink works?
            You think that things are either orderly or completely chaotic.
            It's relative.
            Like we can use the motion of earth to tell time. But it's always gonna be true.
            But it's most likely gonna be true for millions of years in which case relatively we can look at it as true.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            *not always gonna be true

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    there is no such thing as randomness

    what we call "randomness" is a simply function of what we don't know about a set of variables

    instead of this so called "randomness", what we really have is deliberate intention of a kind we cannot possibly fathom

    it's not an accident, it's designed that way

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >it's not an accident, it's designed that way
      how do you know?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I know this from personal experience.

        Because I don't flip a coin for every decision I make. I have actual reasons for my choices.

        This kind of "reason" is generalizable to reality, because I can know that it is real.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >claims randomness is an uk own fuction
          >claims he knows the uknown nature of randomness
          Midwittery

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            not an unknown function

            it's a function of what we don't know about a certain set of variables that will result in a certain outcome regardless of what we know, like odds in sports betting

            the opposite of randomness is deliberation, accident is a negation of design

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          From your personal experience you know that randomness is designed?
          What personal experience is that?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I know how to rigorously shuffle a deck through a certain number of iterations to reach a critical threshold of what we call "randomness".

            And I can manipulate shuffles to significantly reduce this "randomness"

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The cards doesn't end up in random position
            they end up were you put them
            You just don't know were you put them so it seems random.
            >critical threshold of what we call "randomness".
            Feel free to define that. You can't.
            You shuffled some card and you don't know the order. That's all you did. That doesn't prove randomness is designed you moron.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >You just don't know were you put them so it seems random.

            what you call randomness is a function of your degree of ignorance regarding the set of variables in a given equation

            you are missing the point

            the *reason* I go through those iterations is because I want the deck to be maximally random, to play a fair game

            that's how I know randomness is by design, because I can do it myself for a good reason

            >Feel free to define that. You can't.
            How many different cards are in your deck?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The cards are not randomly in the deck
            They are still in fact were you put them
            You can shuffle them for a year. They are still gonna be were you put them
            In which case it's only perceived to be random
            theoretically you could know were every card is
            Now please tell me how that proves that the randomness of the world is designed?
            You can't because you are a midwit moron

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >it's only perceived to be random

            That's what I've been saying this entire thread.

            there is no such thing as randomness

            what we call "randomness" is a simply function of what we don't know about a set of variables

            instead of this so called "randomness", what we really have is deliberate intention of a kind we cannot possibly fathom

            it's not an accident, it's designed that way

            you think things are random, bur really they're the opposite of random

            or you say *some* things must be random, and others not random, because it's special pleading

            >only perceived to be random
            >proves that the randomness of the world is designed
            what you call "randomness", isn't

            you don't know what could possibly make randomness possible to begin with

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Please show us your proof of the great card shuffler of life.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            causality means cards fall into a certain order when you manipulate them for a reason

            sometimes, that reason is you don't want to know what order they are in
            other times, it's because you want to know that

            Difference being; what is fair, and can you execute without being noticed?
            This principle of causation is generalizable to reality, because it is real. And refusing to accept that could lead to you being cheated at cards.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Please show us your proof of the great card cheat of life

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >what you call randomness is a function of your degree of ignorance regarding the set of variables in a given equation
            This is an epistemological statement. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were in fact true randomness at work in all of the universe. Fire could appear out of nowhere even if there were no combustion agents to be found. People could roll into tubes or be turned into liquid. Horses could swim in the air. Dogs could have streams of butterflies flowing out their ears. Nothing would have an apparent necessary cause. Now, I do not claim that this is the belief I hold, and I don't think a lot of people, especially not academic philosophers, seriously hold this view except while talking about the limits of science or human cognition.
            In such an utterly random universe, either God could set anything into being at will, in which case God's own will would be the only necessary agent in the universe, or God Himself would be subject to this same randomness, in which case God's own will would be completely at the mercy of randomness.
            I know that people often label non-random stuff like coin flips (which might not have an a priori known array of outcomes, but are still governed by laws such as gravity and force, and could, in theory, be modified to make them perfectly predictable using a robot) "random", but in a truly random universe, there would be no finite set of combinations, no choices to be made, only happenings.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were in fact true randomness at work in all of the universe.

            Why would I suppose that? This is gish galloping word salad.

            I'm arguing the exact opposite. That randomness is only possible as an ontological override of causality.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >randomness is only possible as an ontological override of causality
            That is in fact what I've tried to argue all along since the beginning of this thread.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            So you accept that randomness is only possible in the first place because God is real and can just do that, right?

            >I only shuffled it 6 times so it's not random yet
            >*shuffles it another time*
            >now it's completely random were every card is in the deck. No rhyme or reason to were each card is. They are just magically in random positions in the deck

            welcome to math
            this is called a "limit"

            it is an arbitrary point of relation to origin we treat as an infinitesimal because it's convenient, not necessarily accurate

            or if you prefer less precise definitions, we can just go with "statistical significance"

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >it is an arbitrary point of relation to origin we treat as an infinitesimal because it's convenient, not necessarily accurate
            So not random
            So shuffling cards does in fact not prove that randomness is by design
            thanks for admitting your card analogy was just midwittery
            Feel free to prove that the randomness in the universe is by design. Hint: you can't

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            If randomness is not possible ontologically, as you say, there can be no accidents or coincidences.

            Only design, only deliberate and intentional events playing out in a certain mode of operation we call causality.

            We have proved already that what we call "randomness" is really just a function, and functions have a function all their own. It's called "reason", maybe you've heard of it.

            So yes, randomness is a design. Chaos out of order.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >If randomness is not possible ontologically, as you say
            I didn't
            I did say your a midwit though
            >We have proved already that what we call "randomness" is really just a function
            actually "we" haven't proved that.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            oh, you thought I was referring to you...

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >randomness is only possible in the first place because God is real and can just do that
            Well, the problem I see with that is one that I already explained before, which is that either God's will guides randomness, in which case everything that happens in the universe is subject to God's whims, meaning that the universe does not act randomly in response to God's will, or else God's will must bring about completely random outcomes, in which case not even God's own will can be an agent of necessary effects.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >either God's will guides randomness, in which case everything that happens in the universe is subject to God's whims, meaning that the universe does not act randomly in response to God's will
            not guides randomness, manifests it
            guided randomness wouldn't be random

            in that case the universe would act randomly in response to God's will, which is that, it or at least a specific part of it behaves randomly

            even if it acts in a way that is contrary to his will, because he is the one who has willed it to act randomly to begin with that would mean it was actually intentional and not in dissaccord with the intent

            and this intentionality is what makes it possible
            he may will not only that things behave randomly, he may will that instead they act intentionally of their own accord

            >or else God's will must bring about completely random outcomes, in which case not even God's own will can be an agent of necessary effects

            it doesn't follow that God being able to produce an ideal form of randomness means that suddenly his will cannot determine contingency or necessity

            he can do all that, and play cards fair at the same time

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Botflies lay eggs on blades of grass or in nests, where they hatch. Dogs become infected with a botfly larva when they come into contact with a blade of grass that has a maggot on it. The dog's movement against the blade of grass stimulates the maggot to crawl onto the dog or passing host.
            >The small maggots crawl around until they find an orifice where they can enter (mouth, ear, nose, etc.). Then, they migrate through various internal tissues and, ultimately, make their way into the skin.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    anons ITT don't know how many cycles a deck with X number of unique cards has to be shuffled through to meet tournament regs

    for sake of argument, lets say a 60 card deck
    well, you'd technically have to pile shuffle and mash that bad boy 7 times

    thankfully, you have to pass your deck to your opponent so they can cut it too
    which is another operation that ideally maximizes randomness and fair play

    it's best to shuffle in different ways, and to shuffle the order of ways you shuffle too

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >I only shuffled it 6 times so it's not random yet
    >*shuffles it another time*
    >now it's completely random were every card is in the deck. No rhyme or reason to were each card is. They are just magically in random positions in the deck

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >randomness is actually just god shuffling the cards really well
    >i know that because only god can shuffle the cards

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *