Chance does not exist. If I throw a deck of cards in the air I can treat the apparent haphazardness of their landings as chance because it is probably impossible for me to know all the parameters of the event, but the event is completely governed by the laws of nature and therefore theoretically predictable .
There is no reason what-so-ever to believe that chance created this world…other than the will to believe that their is no intention behind reality.The problem for atheists is that we know intention exists (we all have direct experience of it) and it is a fucking good explanation of the world we inhabit .
Well the big bang theory kinda says otherwise, but even setting that aside there is no evidence of the existence of chance or its creative/stabilising ability. We have sound evidence of the creative/stabilising ability of intent. If the situation is infinite and eternal then there is still no reason for supposing that chance is the more likely driving force behind the stability we witness.
There is direct experience of intent, there is no evidence for chance.
I could be wrong, but I think there is a fundamental language issue here in the way you talk about “chance”. Perhaps the reason you’re so sure that “chance” doesn’t exist is because the way you define it is absurd.
There’s no evidence that intent is connected with the beginning of the Universe.
But you’re also using “chance” in a potentially ambiguous way. I take it you mean to say that chance is the absence of intention. But there’s still a chance I’m mistaken about that.
I understand what the word means , and as I implied earlier, I accept that for day to day situations we can use the word (because we can not know the parameters of all events so they appear to be chance dependent) even though in actual fact it refers to nothing existent.
“Process” doesn’t refer to anything but a mental construct. “Chance” is the same sort of thing. It’s the feature of a paradigm. You know, like the way science has paradigms (like processes).
Whether the world is created or not is not relevant to this. There is no evidence that chance (if such a thing existed) could “drive” the world as it is being driven.
Chance refers to a mindless process of creativity (creation of new situations etc) . Such a mindless process can not create, therefore chance does not exist.
“the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency: Chance governs all.”
So part of your argument is that personifying chance is the right way to think about it? If so, you’re arguing against the most fantastic possible definition of the word, and you probably won’t be taken seriously. Trees are often personified too.
I accept that the word “chance” can be used in day to day language in its traditional way, but I am not going to personify something which I do not believe to exist.Give me evidence of the creative and stabilising effects of chance if you believe in it.
I have trouble interacting with you because you seem keen to overcomplicate straightforward concepts. Maybe the fact that we are from different backgrounds means we don’t communicate well.
