A predictable proof of God.

A predictable environment can not be the product of randomness because randomness can not form concrete laws.

A predictable environment requires directed will.

How is it predictable when Chaos theory says:

Who done it? Life for life, some super charged energy must have rooted us for taking care, so much that we can be feeling as ‘Gods’ if we really were ‘perfect’ but why we know what perfection is because we are handled the possibility to even come close to that if possible. Why relative things are so well in hand among us being because life’s ways are better then chaotic, I believe the only thing in the way of developlment of identity and gains is chaos, it is just a natural energy as oposed to principaling order.

Considering its randomness, then there is a microscopic chance that outcomes are such that it gives the illusion of order. Any answer can be given for the apparent laws, why assume only god?

Chaos theory is just a cop out.If we know the parameters , then everything is predictable, ergo , the universe is predictable.That we don’t know the parameters does not imply that there is chaos.

So we are living in an illusion, ergo, all meaningful discussion ends.

Does a directed will require a predictable environment?

I’d say that will arises with the environment.So for existence there is a corresponding will.

That’s not to say that this particular existence corresponds to the one that arises with God though.

So, you’re allowing that God’s will may be wholly and completely capricious, and that there is no predictable proof of Him?

Not so.I’m saying will is necessary for order, that the two (order and will) are bound together.

I’m saying that God is still responsible for us , but that this particular existence may not be the perfect one in which god resides.

Reciting one proof of God after another, we have ample chance to demonstrate the infirmity of mind instead. And what an invaluable demonstration it is!

“If I cannot conceive a thing, then such a thing is inconceivable.”
“Being inconceivable, it cannot be.”
“If a thing is not, then the opposite of the thing is the case.”
“Ergo, we have proven God.”

Look at this enormous pile of mistakes! Its vulcanic proportions inspire awe, and based on such premises and their recombinations, infinite spewing at the nozzle may be expected and predicted. But what is the crown of it all, the crowing mistake? Perhaps you’ll agree that this is faith in Reason - a fine form of idolatry behind the veils. After all, you and I know that the evil of idols is not in their scowling faces or brass breast; they are forbidden by the wise because they are intermediaries.

I invite everybody to attempt a brief foolish look at the world without the intermediary of Reason. A racing heart, nervous seizures and breathlessness are all signs of near-success! Suddenly the Sun is not just the sun, the Tree is not just a tree. And I am not just I.


I meant to say that randomness can create such a scenario, and we can be none the wiser, though such a chance is totally minuscule. What makes this impossible under randomness? And why should a directed will be the only conclusion for design?

Every heard of Thermodynamics?

Why, because you say so? This is no argument. How do you know everything is predictable, you do not have infinite knowledge. If you try to claim you know everything is predictable from your finite knowledge then you are making a weak induction from particular to universal, and so you cannot be sure.

The universe is not absolutely deterministic, it is only deterministic on a certain order of magnitude. Modern physics dismisses the idea of determinism. But even if you still cling to it, it is not a proof of God. Chaos theory merely shows how the dynamics of a complex system cannot be absolutely predetermined, and this is true, they cannot. Part of this is the limitation in our ability to gather information (uncertainty principle as well as our human macroscopic perspective), but part of it is inherent to energetic interaction itself – there is always a real possibility that events will not happen as they deterministically “have to” happen. This is due to the indeterminacy at the quantum level of reality.

But like I said, even if you choose to dismiss all that, which would be irrational but it seems that is what you are doing anyways, the idea of absolute determinism does not prove God exists. All a “predictable environment” requires is that causality is 100% absolute and perfectly determined. And this could certainly be the case even if there is no God – in fact rationally it is quite easy to imagine that a sort of Newtonian deterministic causality exists where every event is absolutely predetermined by preceeding causes and cannot be otherwise… this does not prove God exists, however, and only proves that the idea of perfect causality is not a rational contradiction. In fact it seems more rational than indeterminacy, but as I said before, science and math is tending to affirm a basic indeterminism… but that is another subject.

So basically, your argument fails on multiple levels. Your premises are unjustified, which is reason enough to dismiss your argument as nonsense; but even if we accept your premises as true this still does not generate any necessity as to the existence of God – there is just no logical connection between the idea of a deterministic universe and the idea of a “will” which orders it so. It is perfectly possible (and more logical) that the universe is just deterministic on its own, that this is the basic structure of energy itself, that it takes on a form of causality because it could not do otherwise, because it is logically necessary.

I think it is far more reasonable to believe that this existence, and all the laws governing it, are formed through will rather than random luck.If I see a tower of playing cards in the middle of a room I don’t assume they fell there.

I think the weather is a better example of what, on the surface, appears to be random events that are in fact predictable when we know the exact parameters involved. I do accept that we will probably never know all the parameters , but that doesn’t imply that systems that appear random are in fact random .

I think it is reasonable to believe that our increase in knowledge has led to an increase in our ability to predict.Although that means I can’t be sure that everything is theoretically predictable, it does mean that it is a reasonable assumption. I think it is reasonable to assume that what appears to be chaotic also has to obey laws (that we may not understand).

I don’t believe a random system can form the laws of nature, in the same way that I don’t believe you can throw together a tower of playing cards (no matter how many times you do it).

I think it is a retrograde step to try and use science that we barely understand to try and “prove” a philosophical point.“Modern physics” may well be wrong.

Actually it is not reasonable to “assume”. You admit to not know yet you claim it is reasonable to believe so, classical logical fallacy.